The fight is stupid, because you don’t need towering skyscrapers to get useful density (define that how you will).
Suburbs are often old small towns with housing built up around; they can have an urban component!
The real deep underlying issue is envy that you can’t live the way you want, and lashing out - combined with our houses lasting way too damn long. Nobody is knocking down 100 year old but serviceable houses unless there’s a HUGE moneymaking demand.
But that’s what you need to cycle housing stock.
I have lived in both. I agree with this. Suburbs don't mean car dependent, long commutes, or void of food. It is more about where you pick your place to live. I live across from a grocery store, on a main transit line and in the suburbs.
The other thing I don't get is the food argument. Do people really eat out all the time? When I travel for work I have weeks where I have to eat out and my body is yelling at me by the time I am back home. It feels like restaurants dump whole salt shakers in their meals.
My wife and I cook often, but we'll usually go out to eat (together or separately) once or maybe twice a week. We love having several good restaurants within walking distance, with a variety of cuisines.
We also love having a small but well-stocked grocery within walking distance.
I grew up in the suburbs, and while yes, they do vary wildly in density, many will not have these walkable features.
It's an age thing. People right out of college tend to eat out more and in general use city-only amenities more. We are also over-represented in online forums.