This is a fair argument, which Nathan Williams AKA "Blackrain79" have also made in a recent video. The counter argument is, that tournaments offer more variation in stack sizes and tactical considerations about outlasting other players, taking advantage of risk aversion as the big stack, and so on and so forth. In short one can say, that cash game players need to be extremely good at one specific situation, which is 100BB poker played in chip EV, whereas tournament players need to be reasonably good at a variety of different situations.
I started out with cash games, and one of the things, I got tired of, and which contributed to my decision to move to tournaments, was the whole table and seat selection process. At their core cash games are all about bum hunting and in particular getting the "jesus seat" to the direct left of a loose bad player AKA "fish". You can ignore this of cause, but then you will constantly end up in bad seats on bad tables, and this will seriously hurt your results.
What made it especially tiring for me was the fact, that 6-max tables in particular often run around a single "fish". So when the "fish" leave, then within the next orbit or so everyone else leave as well, and the table simply break down. After which you need to go on a new waiting list again. Or jump onto a table with a vacant seat, where it then usually turns out, the fish just left, so that table breaks down as well. Or you have the fish to your direct left, and thats why the seat got vacant.
Then you can play the Zoom format, but that has other severe disadvantages. For me its almost not even real poker, because there is no such thing as table dynamics, when you face new opponents every hand, and its very difficult to get a read on anyone. In my experience Zoom games are also very reg infested and difficult to beat, and for me at least the format can almost be tilting in itself. But again everyone should play, what they enjoy most. So this is just my personal opinion
