It's like an argument about vaccines between housewives - firstly neither side actually understands the areas being discussed - that evident from how discussion of nuclear technology shaped up.

Secondly the statement is poorly defined - you have different ideas about what counts as 'innovation'.

Third, it is quantitive, but none of the arguments/statements given by either side have any quantities attached.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but if your centered your argument around patents, or GDP growth, or research funding and papers, you would have a more productive discussion.