Walkthrough Justification

I know it's been a long time.
And trust me for those few that read me, it will only get longer.
With that said, I'd like to jump into the topic of this post.
Bascially the Internet is evolving.
And with it, flash gaming.
Gone are the days when you could Right-click and press Forward to beat the game.
Beating the game has become even more critical when you get badges for it.
I know one site that does this:
http://www.kongregate.com/?referrer=RunaWorld
Sign up if you want, it's pretty cool if I do say so myself.
But back to the point, until recently players had no problem beating games but with the increasing difficulty many have resorted to walkthroughs.
Ever since walkthroughs have been created, there has been a wave of backlash from the internet claiming the walkthroughs shouldn't be used. Even the user of walkthroughs sometimes feels guilt or remorse in using the walkthrough.
I am here to show you why this guilt and remorse and hatred of walkthroughs are all unjustified.
First, you must realize that walkthroughs are aides only, they don't do the game for you, just help you finish it. That's not so bad is it? But then there are the accusations that walkthroughs "spoil" the fun.
This is also not true.
If a certain person was, let's say, doing a puzzle for an infinite amount of time, you can agree that he would eventually exhaust all possibilities and find the answer. Now in real life, we don't have that much time, so walkthroughs simply "speed up" the process. Now instead of spending infinite time, you solve the puzzle instantaneously.
Moreover you achieve the same result as if you had taken an infinite amount of time.
So in reality the only difference between these two methods is time.

Now using induction I can finish by saying that any player ,given sufficient enough time, can solve any game.

If you achieve the same result both ways, are we correct then to say that one method is better than the other?