I'm arguing with the very phrases used here supposedly to describe the gist of each book.

If those are accurate, then there's no point in reading the books at all (like I wouldn't read a book described as "the best arguments why the Earth is flat").

Now the descriptions might not be accurate, and those could be excellent books. But, alas, the only information I have had to judge whether I should read those books comes from the OP introducing them with those descriptions.