This is an argument that appeals to ones inbuilt (and perhaps poorly examined) beliefs.
A strong opinion either way is probably really a prejudice.
Neither day trading nor longer term trading is inherently safer.
- in both cases you can scale your risk to the actual and potential volatility of the markets
- in both cases you can get black swan events that are outside of the potential volatility you anticipate and thus incur larger losses (gains) than predicted.
Arguments about building capital with long term vs short term are also just personal preferences. In either case you can scale positions or position size. It works in both.
Day trading has advantages like the number of times you can take a risk per unit time which should give higher profitability for a given size account. With rare exceptions though they don't seem to because of: scaling issues as one gets bigger on short term which increase slippage and make it difficult to get a position, psychological issues that are more prevalent as decision making time gets shorter, etc.
And so on and so forth. But then, why get in the way of a good argument with rational thought. I borrowed this from a pm I got on another site
The things people believe in are usually just what they instinctively feel is right; the justifications and arguments are the least important part of the belief.
That's why you can win the argument, prove them wrong, and still they believe what they did in the first place. You've attacked the wrong thing.
So what do you do? Agree to disagree. Or fight. - C. Zakalwe.