Can the conclusion stand if the arguments are not correct? I'm sure there are other, better arguments out there, but after reading this from top to bottom I'm getting the idea that the resistance to Python 3 is mostly irrational.
It can; arguing it can't would be an 'argument from fallacy', itself a fallacy.
Put another way, I can make up a totally absurd, incorrect argument that the sky is blue, but the sky is still blue. I can also make up a totally absurd, incorrect argument that the sky is green, but it isn't. An argument that doesn't hold water doesn't say anything useful about the conclusion either way.