Stephen

Con saying - "your arguments kinda suck and your second argument is honestly just as bad", is not an argument or in anyway a rebuttal.
And attempting that old chestnut of "definitions" argument as in -" you didn't actually define perfect in any meaningful way" - clearly indicates that Con was way out of his depth from the moment he stuck his keyboard.
Pro presented his case in an adult and professional manner. Con's presentation was childish and ill mannered.
Pro's source material was excellent, where as Con's was nothing short of childish empty word salad.

I would like to be able to say , that considering Con has only just signed up here -5 Dec 2022, has no forum threads or a single forum post to his name , that it was a brave but suicidal leap to enter into to a debate so unprepared and so intellectually unarmed.