I wholeheartedly don't believe it should be a mechanic of the game that is to blame for a meta becoming unfavorable in the eyes of the people. It is very important for people to understand that Dynamaxing isn't a tangible element that you can simply remove like an individual pokemon or item or whatever, but rather the entire concept of something, akin to all abilities, all items, all moves, etc. Removing it would essentially be removing part of what makes a pokemon... a pokemon.
Dynamax is a mechanic that's able to be utilized during a game but not during teambuilding. While it's true that it's not akin to banning an individual Pokemon, it's also true that it's much more comparable to mechanics such as switching (which is a mechanic that can't be utilized in 1v1 and doesn't make Pokemon in 1v1 any less of Pokemon). That said, you're correct in saying that it's not so simple as banning a move. In fact, it's more of a clause than a ban. However, I think that in the case of dynamax in 1v1, we have ample reason to necessitate a dynamax clause.
1. Evaluations cannot come without evidence of the claims made.
Let's start with my claims:
A) The coexistence of dynamax and Substitute turns a huge number of matchups into 50/50s.
B) Non-dynamaxed Pokemon simply can't compete dynamaxed and there are only 19 max moves of which most Pokemon get a good variety. Because of this, viable moves essentially include the 19 max moves, Substitute, and some niche set up options. This radical degradation in the number of viable moves will lead to overcentralization because without their movepools to set them apart, many previously niche Pokemon will be entirely outclassed by Pokemon with better stats, abilities, and typings. In essence, dynamax decreases the number of available niches in the metagame.
My first claim is hardly based on metrics or experience, it's one that's simply true. Denying that the interaction between Substitute and dynamax isn't relevant is lunacy. While one may blame Substitute instead of dynamax here, banning Sub will not help with my second quip, and might actually exaggerate it. You're correct in saying that my second claim is currently based in experience rather than evidence, but it seems at least
probable that dynamax leads to overcentralization, and at this point in the gen, that's enough. Just like banning the cover legendaries, we should make the best metagame that we're capable of to start the generation even if that involves some uncertainty. I'm all for having a suspect to bring dynamax back later, but in the mean time we shouldn't have the meta developing for too long in a direction that's going to be voided by a game-changing ban once the stats are clear.
2. In the debate of creating a "better" metagame as opposed to a "pure" metagame, the latter is less subjective.
As I touched on above, I simply believe that we have enough reason to damage the "purity" of 1v1 in order to make it "better." The state of the metagame right now is simply awful (opinion!) and it's clear to me that the source of this awfulness is dynamax.
3. Suspect tests and discussions are a means to evaluating why the suspected element was or should be removed.
- With the understanding set forth by point 2 that only something egregiously harmful to the metagame deserves to be removed, the task of demonstrating those egregious characteristics falls to the side attempting to instigate change within the metagame.
- Demonstrating something as an element that deserves to be banned is not simply something that can be done by show of support when someone makes a post that you agree with, but rather with rigid evidence that a conclusion can be drawn from.
The burden of proof does fall upon the pro-ban side and while I would agree with you later in the gen, I disagree with you at this point in the gen. We don't need rigid evidence, we need to make the meta as good as possible as quickly as possible. I think that it's also important that we don't see a dynamax ban this early in the gen as a permanent event considering that we'd hopefully give dynamax a suspect eventually.
4. The point of suspect tests and bans is ultimately to lower the number of broken, uncompetitive, and/or unhealthy elements present within the metagame.
The uncompetitive and unhealthy elements that I think a dynamax ban would reduce are the omnipresence of genuine 50/50s and overcentralization. Is that clear-cut enough? While we don't
know that a metagame without dynamax would be better, I'm also unconvinced that the past happened. Uncertainty is unavoidable and focusing too much on it, especially this early in the gen, simply leads to inaction.
5. An alternative metagame is a bad idea.
I really don't get where you're going here. A huge majority of people who play 1v1 OMs play regular 1v1 too so there shouldn't be any serious divide. Besides, how would this relate to a dynamax ban?
6. Discerning something as a problem means that there has to be a problem in the metagame.
The problems with dynamax are that it introduces 50/50s to too many matchups and that it results in overcentralization. I simply fail to see how either of these things (especially the prior) must result in an individually suspect-worthy Pokemon.
7. Discerning problems is a matter of skill.
In a vacuum, Substitute-dynamax 50/50s are genuine 50/50s and you're unable to control whether or not your opponent brings Substitute. Putting these together removes skill from the hands on the player and replaces it with pseudo-RNG. My issue with overcentralization does not impede skill.
Ultimately, Dynamax is a generation-defining feature of the Sword and Shield metagame, much like Stealth Rock was for Diamond and Pearl, Hidden Abilities for Black and White, Mega Evolution for X and Y, and so forth. Removing it would effectively be forfeiting the identity as a Gen 8 metagame and molding it into an OM of itself, rather than abiding by the standards set in place by the new generation.
While there is something to be said about purity and the loss of identity, the state of the meta is stale and does not reward skill to the extent that it could. I think I speak for most of 1v1 when I say that I'd rather play an interesting metagame without Game Freak's latest gimmick than what we have now.