He explains his point convincingly well.

You should make your point in reply if you disagree with OP, because slandering OP is not changing my pov to yours here.

I'd say the fact that they write-off repeated examples of existing systems that are deployed commercially failing, and then also haven't responded with any real world examples of systems that are "nearly foolproof" as a pretty good indicator of arguing a hypothetical.

No he doesn't. His entire comment history is exactly what he's done here. Decently written but empty and contrarian for the sake of it. Engaging with this person is a waste of time, I was merely providing a public service to others that similarly value their time.