Why do you have an opinion on what other people's games should be? Do you have opinions about what other people should have for lunch? Or what TV shows they should watch?
This smacks of, "I now what's good for you better than you do." Which... you don't, generally speaking. You're not an authority, you don't generally know the people at the games of your audience. So, your assertion is pretty weak, rhetorically speaking.
This is an age-old argument, and some of it is spilling over from another thread (qnd really, how about we leave it in that thread, please and thank you). Ultimately, the answer, "I find this is better, but you should choose what your players like best," is superior to, "I know what's better for your players than you do."
IMHO, anyway.
Stories without risk are dull - they lack suspense. When was the last time you watched a movie, series or play where there was physical conflict and absolutely no risk of death?
That's right - you didn't, because writers know it won't work. This is very,
very long established truism - not an opinion, which if you knew anything about the history of storytelling, you wouldn't have gotten confused about.
That's been the opinion of story-makers since at least the ancient Greek playwrights, and probably long before that.
A GM in a
campaign (and I did clearly make that distinction) who constantly fudges to keep PCs alive takes that risk away. Players are not stupid - they notice these things.
I've been running games for 40 years. I run convention games on a regular basis, and I have successfully completed all the novel and script writing courses offered in the Groucho Club in Soho - London.
I wouldn't use the word 'authority', especially as a backhanded put-down, but I would say that I have the experience to comment with clarity and insight. The word 'should' was offered quite clearly as an opinion after the equally stated caveat that games of other sorts are in no way invalid, just duller if they involve a risk of death that everyone knows is fake.
Why not do some homework on what makes a good story - there is so much material online you cannot possibly miss it all.
Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, especially when they back it up with some reasoning. I am not sure that telling anyone their opinion smacks of <<insert putdown here>> based on you opinion (which seems ignorant of the long-established best practices of conflict in storytelling) is a productive response.
Let me say it again - stories with physical and violent conflict should have a risk of death or they lose suspense and are dull.
If you really want to argue otherwise - then by all means do so -
addressing the argument and not deploying your virtue-signalling spun ad hominem routine.