1. the other guy made some argument
2. but he was just too ignorant to understand why his argument was wrong
3. I am smart and I do SENSEMAKING
4. therefore other guy's argument is wrong
As far as I can tell, the actual first argument is something along the lines of
1. many founders raise capital and waste it because it's not "their money" so they part ways with it more easily
2. this leads to failed businesses
3. therefore founders should not raise money
and the counter argument is
1. some businesses need upfront capital and the returns only come later
2. some founders can raise capital and use it effectively, instead of wasting it, even though it isn't "their money"
3. therefore founders should raise money
which are both good arguments and in no way contradict each other. I have seen founders do both, and it's true that some money is raised when it was not needed, and some money is raised and then squandered, and some money is raised and used effectively to generate massive returns. That's why it's called "venture" capital.