the key missing from this synthetic argument is the same that is always overlooked.
Yes a $50 Stock + short $50 Call is the same as short $50 put but in most cases an investor would not do the same strike position with a naked put as he would do with a covered call. So their view of it is not clear and you get them more confused.
Most people who do short puts usually do OTM short puts at lower strikes and not ATM where many focus on CCs.
So the explanation will be better served if you move away from the pure synthetic argument and show how a short $45 put might achieve the same results more efficiently then buying the stock at $50 and selling the $50 Call. The premium on the put will be less due to OTM but you can sell more to get to same premium profit and still improve performance over ATM stock and ATM call in most cases. And the naked puts will still require less of your portfolio capital or margin to do so.
I think this is the problem when people blindly compare covered calls to naked puts as synthetic equivalents, you need to illustrate the use of, as outlined above, a short $45 put versus buying the stock at $50 and selling the $50 calls. Since you are not buying the stock, and short puts have better margins from most brokers you can sell more puts to equal the profit potential of the CC but now have $5.00 of cushion until expiration as opposed to the $2.50 cushion in the original example of the $50 Call at $2.50.
I think this makes a better argument of how short puts can be used better than CCS unless you are already using an equity filled portfolio.
So I think you will all make you point better if you point out this kind of distinction and show how you can mroe efficiently use your funds in the portfolio and make ajdustments with one position per entry versus stock + calls, then simply stating synthetics synthetics synthetics.
assuming you had the time or care to even bother

lol
good effort Cache lol...