There is no logical coherence to this statement. Just because there have been proponents of both sides of a debate for many years doesn't mean that a new argument is invalid.
Not every new argument, decades later, is valid either and this is a dim witted one. As made up on the spot as they come.
But you still haven't said what's dim witted about it.
I did.
I believe you refer to the "real" in the title as meaning "historically correct". If that is the case it is a silly argument. Real can also mean "having relevant effect in practice"
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines ignoring our request to stop. I held off as long as I could, but this is egregious.