Auto-translated
Let me remind you that this discussion in this vein started with your remark: "I think all these arguments are crap."
Yes, before that, there was my phrase: "So, the idea is crap; we've seen it before."
But the difference between them is that my phrase is 1) true, 2) theoretically justified, and 3) practically justified.
Your phrase, on the other hand, is supported only by vague arguments like: "As far as I can see, most games are decided either by a rush or by whoever gets more ducks/angels. It's not serious when, in the 2nd week, they come with 7-9 angels; what kind of double-build can counter that?" And they are vague because if there are no ducks and angels, you get almost the same result, with the difference that the rush will be a little later, but it will be unstoppable (because they got hidden/native castles).