The disagreement I have with this post is pretty much my problem with the distinctions as they are defined right now. The reasoning is still based on individual types. In particular, I don't think it's that fruitful to identify individual types as "offensive" or "defensive". I kind of regret referring to Fire and Flying as "offensive types" myself, especially since both the individual types and the combination have definite merits both offensively and defensively.
What I want to get at with this concept is to make the direction relatively simple, like what Birkal posted:
Originally Posted by Fat Birkal
a) Create a Pokemon with a poor defensive typing that performs defensively.
b) Create a Pokemon with a poor offensive typing that performs offensively.
This focuses on the whole typing rather than its individual parts, and it creates a clear distinction between the roles that this CAP could attempt to take, which I think is
very important to decide in this stage.