One cannot reduce Smash to an equation where its component pieces can be analyzed impartially. And, without impartiality, there's no inarguable solution. Regardless of whether one views a specific Smash game as "better for competition", "entertainment," or a combination of the two, there's no way to take personal taste out of any ranking system. It's an impossibility. So any conclusion in these Brawl vs. Melee debates is less a representation of which game is superior than it is a reflection of those who compile the arguments.
While it has been said that it can be proven that Melee is a more "competitive" game (meaning it's a more accurate way to decipher who is more skilled at smash between people), that is another useless point. If all the necessary research was done to prove Melee is more competition suitable, and (as Reaver hopes to accomplish) this research was shown to all smashers through some kind of education system, there wouldn't be very many people in the smash community who would suddenly go, "OH! Melee is much better for tournament play! Fascinating, that cleared up a lot of confusing things for me! Let's go organize a Melee tournament this Friday, instead of a Brawl tournament!" The truth is that the community would continue to develop as it has since the release of Brawl (read Jack's other thread about Brawl and Melee). Therefore, the Brawl vs. Melee debates are pointless.