Playing as black is fine, it just requires a more reactive playstyle. So as a controi player, I prefer black.
I know that the data at ChessReplay.com shows that white has a better winrate, but that is because the whitetard aggro players dont know how to play reactive and there is also a lot of auto-conceding against white. So aggro white is better at lower ranks, but in top 100 legend the game is pretty balanced.
I know that there's parody in here, but you're just the wrong way around; top players have a higher advantage when W, which drops with lower ratings of players involved. presumably because with better play comes a better ability to exploit a minor tempo lead.
At low-mid levels? You can get away with black being preferred. Pretty much any chess tablebase set to to GM only will tell you that W has a small edge over B, though. Enough that alternating colours is standard etc.. That extra tempo is crucial for topend play. Enough studies have been done on this.
In practicality - at club level, for example, where you're not likely to see people much over 200 ECF (~2200 ELO, NM territory; I say generally, though we have one local team with three 200+ players), W/B is relatively even. You can get away with losing a few tempo because you're unlikely to be punished too badly; it usually comes down to pieces/pawns/pawn structure as you move up the ranks, or sometimes just general sharpness and knowing theory/themes. Some lines are hard to analyze on the fly; things like white's Nxf7!? in the semislav, which leads to a pretty forced line; others you're better knowing the themes and common threats/ideas (I'd suggest the more positional openings here, something like a Berlin as an example). Unless you're titled, it's relatively moot.
Nah, I dont believe that.
ChessReplay.com's statistics are absolute and unquestionable.