I think there's some truth to both sides of the PT debate here. Yes, the PT movies take more criticism than they should because they get compared to the OT films. But, no, that doesn't mean that the PT movies are good movies on their own (even if you'd never seen the OT).
Liking the PT movies is perfectly fine (and there are lots of crappy movies that I enjoy too). But liking something in terms of being entertained by it does *not* make it high quality art. For a film to be considered good (or great), it needs to meet certain standards that have been set throughout the history of the medium.
To argue that any of the PT movies are good films, you have to be able to say that it holds up to other good films in several of the categories by which we judge cinema. Those categories include acting, dialogue, cinematography, pacing, narrative structure, thematic value, visual effects, sound effects, score, etc.
Where the PT shines are things like score and sound effects. Those are as good as any film ever made in the same genre. But to suggest that the PT can hold their own against the good/great genre films in the other categories is something that'd be hard for me to believe as a genuine argument being made with any intellectual honesty.
Again: *liking* a not-so-great movie is absolutely fine; but claiming that same movie to be objectively "good" or "great" should require a credible argument that it holds up to the standards set by other good/great films. If you legitimately think the PT does that, fine (I guess
); but trying to pretend that others can't point to areas where it fundamentally fails to meet several cinematic standards for excellence is just willfully ignorant, IMO.