> The "well-designed" argument here is a bit No True Scotsman, and absolutely not true.
This counter arguments can be interpreted as a mere No True Scotsman of "responsiveness", so this is not a very productive line of argument.
Should one be interested in having a discussion like this again, I would suggest strictly establishing what "responsive" means (which is a subjective experience), including defining when a "responsive" application may be "unresponsive" (swapping to disk, no CPU/GPU time, the cat ate the RAM), and evading terms like "well-designed" (I included it in protest of its use in the comment I responded to).
For example, failing to process input or skipping frames in gameplay would be bad, but no one would see a skipped frame in a config menu, and frames cannot even be skipped if there are no frames to be rendered.