Do you think your counter argument doesn't sound just as retarded? It was literally the shot needed to win the series so...yes, it can be considered that if wanted. Just like the Jordan winning shot in 1998 or the Laettner shot in '92 for Duke. Basketball is much more of an individual sport than baseball, soccer, football, etc., so sure that statement can be made. Irving put in the dagger that killed the Warriors. We don't give a shit what Bron apologists attempt to counter that with. It's still fact.
My argument is far more rational than yours. Your last line about makiig this about "Bron apologists" betrays your sophist nature. This isn't about Lebron or Kyrie but just a rational way of understanding. If Tristan Thompson doesn't make a dunk in the second quarter, or Kevin Love misses free throws in the third, or a thousand other things, Kyrie's three doesn't matter. All the plays before mattered for Kyrie's to matter.
Lebron needed Kyrie. Kyrie needed Lebron. In fact, they needed Thompson, Smith, and Love and some others too most likely, because they were above average level replacement play. I just don't understand how you boil a comparison of player value down to exactly one play and think that means anything. Was Curry a liability for the Warriors because he missed the last shot? Even Lebron at least hit one of the two free throws which allowed them to only have to defend the three point line instead of the entire half court. Do you not see how stupid it is to evaluate player worth based on a single play?
You want to say Kyrie was the better player that series? Sure, make that argument. I think it's not true because he was, at best, an average defender in that series (he did give effort), but that's at least a rational case to be made. It actually evaluates an entire body of work instead of one possession.
Did Michael Jordan need Steve Kerr or John Paxson? Was Robert Horry the most important piece of his championship clubs? Did they decide the series and Jordan was a second thought? Basketball may be more of an individual sport than something like football or soccer (baseball you could argue because of pitchers), but it's still a team. Even in an individual competition, like tennis, it's not like one single play decided the game. Every play before the final play mattered. It's such a simplistic mindset to only see the last thing as the only thing.
Did Kyrie make what was probably the most clutch shot? I can see that argument, but one play still did not solely decide the outcome of the series, which is what I said in the beginning. If you really think that, then that must mean you think all the other plays didn't matter, hence my suggestion of a single possession game. Obviously that was a retarded argument to highlight how retarded your argument is.