It's very hard to get a good look at which arguments are good or not without having the experience to evaluate them.

Here's my view on Rust vs C or C++. Rust is a stricter language which makes it easier to code with low run-time errors, which is great for writing large scale projects. Now the problem with this is that you can write C++ to also be strict but it's a lot more verbose than the standard approach, so most developers don't. This causes disagreement among Rustaceans and C/C++'ers. The C++'ers are correct that you can replicate anything in Rust in C++. A correct program is a correct program regardless of the language it's written in. Rustaceans also oversell when it comes to program correctness, tons of Rust programs have errors; Rust can help minimize errors but it's not a silver bullet. Rewriting-in-Rust for an already good program is a fools errand; the outcome will probably be a worse program. However Rustaceans are correct in pointing out that the C++ written programs tend to have more errors, it's just not the rule they pretend it is.

In summary, Rust is a great language but Rustaceans oversell it. Many of it's apparent advantages can be mitigated by good development practice. It's just that good practices are difficult and uncommon.

(Note that there are also 3-rd party tools like static analysers, which can help developers detect errors. So again Rust is better out of the box, but ultimately you can get the same outcome with some work).