If I say I designed X with principal Y in mind, that claim cannot be contradicted or considered unsubstantiated by other people's experience of using X. It's a statement of intent, not of consequence.
> Not to mention that some of their design decisions are objectively bad
Oh, you're just grinding axes. I'm sorry for engaging.
I'd say you weren't exactly engaging in good faith, either. It's pretty clear that their point could be summarised as something like: Go's designers tried or intended to design the language for programming in the large, but they failed (perhaps partially), so therefore Go isn't (after the fact) designed for programming in the large.
You can argue about whether they really failed or not, but your pedantic take on it wasn't helpful for a discussion.
My argument is exactly that, their claim is unsubstantiated, and people's experiences in practice contradict their claims. Not to mention that some of their design decisions are objectively bad, and go against their claim in the first place: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/16474