If I hold a photographic negative, or anything else real for that matter, in my hand and say to you that it exists, and you simply choose to ignore its demonstrable physical presence and claim it does not exist when in fact I am holding it up right in front of you, then all further discussion regarding the finer points and implications of that existence becomes moot.
I suppose it's somewhat akin to attempting a discussion regarding the finer points and implications of global warming with someone who won't grant the base premise that the globe even exists.
Kind of a pointless exercise to engage in, don't you think? So I won't bother you any further with it.
I am more than happy to accept that your point of view on this topic differs fundamentally from mine. And that the two points of view do not constitute a zero-sum case. Both approaches to photography are valid. And both capable of creative expression. I simply believe that they are not identical approaches. And I have a preference - for all of the reasons I have previously stated - for one approach over the other. Your preference may be different. And just as valid for you.
So I'll let it go with that and leave you to have the last word, if need be...
(And I'm still going with 'Maris' on this...)