Anti-renting people emphasize the control inherent in the relationship. Landlord sets the rules, including price; tenant required to abide. (Attempts to address the market by regulation here have had their share of severe side effects)
Pro-renting people emphasize the affordability and ability to offer housing to those without access to the capital to purchase, as well as the shift of asset risk (physical and market) from the renter to landlord.
The central evil seems not the existence of renting, but the ability of a landlord to capture underlying asset appreciation and charge rent.
Coupled with areas of constrained supply, this leads to landlords getting richer and renters... not. Which seems unfair.
Agreed that it transfers risks and hassles to the landlord. It doesn't transfer any costs though, as they'll be bundled in the rent price.
Renting is like using AWS. You pay for the convenience of someone else taking care of the hardware, but they're making a profit from providing that service.
I think ownership is better because people value securing the shelter where they sleep. Renting is worse because you can't make decisions about how to improve land and architecture. You are only permitted to be there under a limited contractual agreement vs. being able to stay put until you decide to sell.