This doesn't seem to be much of an argument so I'm not even sure what to address.
0-based indexing makes sense to me in C where arrays are just pointers and the index is an offset, and doing pointer math is a regular part of the programming experience. But most languages have come a long way from that, and collections such as arrays are much closer to a natural metaphor (a list of things). As such, natural ranges (inclusive) seem more appropriate to me.
julia> x = collect(1:15)'
1×15 LinearAlgebra.Adjoint{Int64,Array{Int64,1}}:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
julia> x[1:10]'
1×10 LinearAlgebra.Adjoint{Int64,Array{Int64,1}}:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
julia> x[11:end]'
1×5 LinearAlgebra.Adjoint{Int64,Array{Int64,1}}:
11 12 13 14 15
julia> x[11:length(x)]' # alternatively ...
1×5 LinearAlgebra.Adjoint{Int64,Array{Int64,1}}:
11 12 13 14 15The best of both worlds is when a language provides both end-exclusive and end-inclusive slice syntax, as in e.g. Nim: x[0..<10] is end-exclusive, and it's very clear that it is.
Half-open intervals are appropriate when you're thinking of them as subspaces of a continuum. When you're thinking of them as subsequences of discrete elements, closed intervals are usually more natural.
Ruby is the only language I know that really seems to have tried to address the problem, providing different syntax for every way you might want to take a subsequence from an array:
x[5..8] # elements [5] through [8], including [8]
x[5...9] # elements [5] through [9], excluding [9]
x[5, 4] # four elements, starting at [5]
IMO, it's better to have dedicated syntax for index-from-end, as part of the range syntax. Again, Nim does that: x[0..^1] (although unfortunately they didn't make it symmetric).
This is true, and note that my suggestion requires it -- the only way to distinguish x[-0] from x[0] is to have the parser do it; -0 and 0 are the same number.