To be honest, I don't really feel like it, because when someone begins a conversation with a strawman argument, then insists on being absurdly literal I generally don't feel like continuing. But if you insist.

One of the biggest complaints is in doing away with random encounters.  Since the game is made based on Pokemon Go, it makes sense that the game would be more like Pokemon Go, in which you can see Pokemon, and choose which ones to engage.  Similarly, it makes sense that the catching mechanics would be based on Pokemon Go.  

Another complaint is about the removal of features like abilities, held items, mega evolutions, etc.  Which again, isn't an inherently bad thing, just a matter of audience.  Fans of the main Pokemon games have had two decades to get into all of the various nuances, but to newcomers to the franchise, it's kind of intimidating, and somewhat bloated.  If Let's Go is meant to be a bridge between mainline games and Go, then it makes sense to focus on the core rock paper scissors mechanics.  

Essentially, the complaints are that a game designed to be a simplified version of Pokemon and advertised as a simplified version of Pokemon is indeed a simplified version of Pokemon. 

If I insist, ha! More like you realized that you're a hypocrite if you don't, but the reason matters not! Well from your explanation it seems to come down to you believing a concept cannot be flawed, less is more, and options aren't good. I don't agree even slightly, but hey now I can understand where you're coming from and see you as more than just another blind defender your initial comment painted you as.

I will have to challenge your logic though. You say the game should be based on Pokemon Go which is why it's automatically good that there's no random encounters/wild battles, but shouldn't that also mean it's bad that Let's Go has trainer battles, an overworld, a story, no Pokemon besides Gen1, etc.? Those things are/aren't in PoGo afterall.

Now imagine how fired up he would have been if the Dolphins hadn't swept the Jets. You are lucky, I tell you.

No.  It wouldn't mean I'm a hypocrite.  I'm free to spend my time however I like to.  Stating my opinion does not mean I am obligated to defend it against all comers.  If I don't feel like continuing a conversation, I don't have to.  And you are continuing to strawman me in the same way so I'm getting to that point. 

I did not say a concept cannot be flawed.  I just don't think this concept is flawed.  I'm giving specific examples, and you're claiming I'm making general rules.  It's vexing.  When you have a series that has really broad appeal like Pokemon, having a game that appeals to the more casual end of that spectrum is a good concept.  You can have a game like Metroid Federation Force that is simply flawed on a conceptual level, as it is something that really appeals to nobody.  Or you can have a game like Wii Music which is flawed as its core mechanics are not very fun.  I don't think Pokemon Let's Go falls into either of these categories.  

The reason you want to challenge my logic is because you are again turning everything I say into a sweeping generalization.  I said that it makes sense to include some mechanics from Pokemon Go, and take out some mechanics from the mainline game.  This does not mean that the game has to include EVERYTHING from Pokemon Go and exclude EVERYTHING not in go.  As I said, the game is meant to be a bridge between Pokemon Go and the mainline series, so you're going to have some elements of each.  The most important element of Pokemon Go is the catching mechanic.  So that's something that has to be in a game meant to appeal to Pokemon Go fans.  The most core element of Pokemon that you'd want people to become familiar with is the rock paper scissors battle system, the Pokedex, and the quest to the elite four.  So, those elements are present.  

Again, the goal for this game was an accessible Pokemon game, and there is I'm fairly certain, a large group of people who want that.  Complaining that a game made for people who would like a simpler Pokemon game is a simpler Pokemon game is like complaining that a pizzeria is serving pizza and not burgers.  If you want a burger, go to the burger place.  On the other hand, if you think there is something wrong with the pizza, then explain what it is and you may have a point.

Biased towards what or whom? This game looks to be devoid of content (less content than than the $40 3ds games), with many essential things like wild battles, held items, and abilties stripped out. Graphics look like an upressed 3DS game.

And they are pandering to genwunners yet again (return to the worst region ugh). so hard that they couldnt even be bothered to include evos to gen 1 mons from future gens.

It was clearly not gonna be a crap game, but one would expect critics to treat laziness a little more harshly. This is basically a 3DS Pokémon game rendered in HD and being sold at full price... never mind the lack of content and it being a gen 1 remake. It's just a fucking lazy game, and there shouldn't be an excuse for it, but once again the critics (and even the general audience) show that if it's on the Switch, it doesn't matter.

After all, this is the same audience that's paying $20 yearly to play P2P online and defending it.

This is a spin-off. And a remake at that.

So which is the truth? Rhetorical question because it is in fact a mainline game. Nintendo said as much when they announced it and the finished product does indeed play like a traditional Pokemon game. The removal of content and mechanics doesn't mean it's suddenly a different genre, just that it's a worse game. Even if it were true that it's a spin-off, less content is still less content, being a spin-off doesn't somehow make that a good thing. Gates to Infinity for example got criticized for not including all Pokemon all the same.

Have you actually played the game ?

So which is the truth? Rhetorical question because it is in fact a mainline game. Nintendo said as much when they announced it and the finished product does indeed play like a traditional Pokemon game. The removal of content and mechanics doesn't mean it's suddenly a different genre, just that it's a worse game. Even if it were true that it's a spin-off, less content is still less content, being a spin-off doesn't somehow make that a good thing. Gates to Infinity for example got criticized for not including all Pokemon all the same.