It's like an argument about vaccines between housewives - firstly neither side actually understands the areas being discussed - that evident from how discussion

It's like an argument about vaccines between housewives - firstly neither side actually understands the areas being discussed - that evident from how discussion of nuclear technology shaped up. Secondly the statement is poorly defined - you have different ideas about what counts as 'innovation'. Third, it is quantitive, but none of the arguments/statements given by either side have any quantities attached. I don't have a dog in the fight, but if your centered your argument around patents, or GDP growth, or research funding and papers, you would have a more productive discussion.