They specifically said their original point still stands, and I agree with them.

> what is your actual argument

Was it not clear? Okay I can try again.

When advertisers claim that relevant ads are something people want, that's very far from being universally true. Lots of people don't want that. Don't let them use that unsupported claim to support tracking.

Note that the desires of advertisers are not part of this particular argument. It's a simple claim and counterclaim.

How does that follow? And why is your agreement relevant either?

Anyone can have an unlimited number of irrelevant opinions that they believe to possess this or that attribute, they may even genuinely believe so, yet it doesn’t amount to anything.

Even if the claimed argument was flawless… it seems strange to put a non sequitor at the beginning.