Why not both: Bolt12 and LNURL. There is no need to make one look bad to promote the other.
Maybe they just want the best for Bitcoin but I seriously question the motives of people who do this.
Discussion
There is no ulterior motive. I don't want to a domain name and IP address to be required in order to have a static payment identifier. That is a much higher bar for each end-user to reach to have an addressable self-sovereign LN node than simply running a LN node. For that reason it had encouraged many users to use custodial solutions or hosted arrangements that could intercept your payment making it not self-sovereign.
BOLT12 has never been closer than today with Eclair and LDK soon deploying in an interoperable way.
People are welcome to use LNURL with BOLT12 if they want. I'm just happy the former isn't required for the latter to be useful.
💯
I just wrote you a long response and my nostr client deleted everything after someone posted a comment so I'm not gonna redo it. My point was: I understand and mostly agree with your points. But the truth is, LNURL has specific benefits over Bolt12, Bolt12 has specific benefits over LNURL.
Shitting on one to boost the other does not help *at all* it makes this whole debate look like a wasabi vs samourai kindergarden. People get sucked into the bs and stop looking at facts. It doesn't help.
Pain
*drooling over bolt12*