"♥♥♥♥ THE EU" - Victoria Nuland (2014)

ich hoffe dein kissen ist von beiden seiten warm

Pass mir die Apron. Nicer Assist! Wie Jason Williams zu Chris Webber.
Erhältlich auf www.gloup.store

My friend and I recently got into a heated argument about this. He's of the opinion that non-basic lands (ex. [[Elephant Graveyard]] in a [[Yargle, Glutton of Urborg]] deck) are unhealthy for the game and thus, in one way or another, should be banned or otherwise change the rules of EDH to disallow them. I believe they're perfectly fine but I can't get him to understand how ridiculous his claims are. Without disparaging him in person, I'll list the points he made to me so internet strangers can disparage him for me.

Non-basic lands may serve niche purposes, like giving your legends banding, but their uses are too narrow to be a reason why they shouldn't be banned.

Non-basic lands are expensive in part because every EDH deck can run 99 of them, even though there isn't a real need to. The price increases because of multiformat demand ruins the ability for c a s u a l formats that need them more to obtain them. Therefore they should be banned.

Non-basic lands cause people to have access to their colors more often. That's annoying and an aspect of the game that I think shouldn't be increased by the inclusion of non-basic lands. People should have to suffer through 10 turns of drawing only [[Mountain]]s with a hand full of [[Colossal Dreadmaw]]s. Therefore they should be banned.

Changing non-basic lands to have the card name "Plains", "Island", "Swamp", "Mountain", or "Forest" with a black sharpie before playing a game with me is a simple solution that fixes all the issues I have.

[[Evolving Wilds]] / [[Terramorphic Expanse]] don't have the same problem as other non-basic lands (which is that they make me butthurt) because I can personally afford them.

Are any of his claims valid? Are there other reasons against them?