No, that's called being argumentative.
In my case, as an example, a CFII tried to have me fly a different path than the two bar VASI as he judged the plane to be too low (or was it too high?). But the colors of the lights were correct and doing what the instructor wanted would have not been flying to checkride standards.
Another time, CFII said I was more than 1/2 scale deflection for a glide path and that I was not to checkride standard. But he was referencing commercial standards, not standards for the ride I was seeking.
This is the same CFII that did not have a copy of the ACS.
On a circle to land, CFII really pushed for a low altitude high degree of bank low speed turn I was not comfortable with in order to "impress the DPE".
For older and very experienced instructors I expect this kind of thing happens a lot. Priceless wisdom, great gems and insight. They can really chew up less experienced pilots. In my career, there was a saying and at times it was demonstrated, that "nurses eat their young". Same can be true in aviation
Earlier, there were things I was familiar with that a younger newer CFII had not heard of and was not familiar with. So, a 250-300 hr instructor, really has not seen much. Perhaps they got the ticket with Shephard Air and a known DPE yet have not learned how to make wind corrections flying a hold. Or maybe there mind is so full of getting ME/MEI while the student is obsessed with the current rating.
So yes, arguing serves a purpose when trying to achieve a goal. But it is done politely, with resources such as the FAR/AIM, ACS, or satisfactory online resources.
