Those are very weak arguments.
In your first paragraph you (or chatgpt) argue that the only value of bitcoin is in hoping that someone else will pay more for it later, and therefore that it is inherently worthless. You could make the same argument for every commodity based monetary standard in history, including precious metals. Often these commodities have real world utility but this becomes an insignificant part of their market value, which is really dictated by monetary premium. History shows that this can be sustainable as long as there are no big supply shocks. Gold has dominated this niche by demonstrating sustainable scarcity (we struggle to find much more of it). Notice that this is not a case for bitcoin but just a rebuttal of simplistic criticism.
Your second paragraph argues that bitcoin is not censorship resistant if you keep them on an exchange. This applies to literally anything. If your ownership of anything exists solely on a centralised ledger then your transactions can be taxed, controlled and censored. If your identity is attached to this ledger then it will be used against you for further control. This applies to money in the bank, the stock market, the property market, paper gold. You can take paper cash out the bank, but it will devalue over time. You might be able to get paper stocks but in reality stocks do not exist beyond the legally recognized obligations of the company. In other words, they are inherently part of a centralized ledger. You might think you own your house but that is subject to the discretion of government enforcement infrastructure. Physical gold is so far the best alternative to this but it is not ideal because you depend on local markets for liquidity, transport is risky and expensive, and you risk getting fake gold. Bitcoin self custody has none of these issues.
Your third paragraph argues that monero is better because it is actually used like money. Better for what exactly? The dollar is actually used like money, does that make it better than gold? Monero is for security critical operations to make untraceable transactions. It is dominant within this niche because it uses reliable cryptography and dominates both the asic resistant mining industry. Conversely, bitcoin can securely sustain a much greater market cap because it dominates the global hashpower (electricity spent on mining) markets; bitcoin mining already accounts for 0.5% of global energy consumption whereas its leading competitors are negligible.
Your final argument addressing fungibility is by far the most pertinent because your are right that the entire history of any utxo is publicly traceable, and markets already discriminate against funds based on their history. This could create a future where 'tainted' coins are worth less than 'clean' coins because nobody wants to buy them. However, I think this would be unsustainable because the markets are free and global and would have to agree on a definition of 'taint'. I expect some large liquidity provider from some contrarian jurisdiction (Iran?) would come forward to claim the increased market share promised to whoever accepts those 'tainted' coins.
