What are you even taking issue with here? The wording? You're both saying the same thing. "The KV1 is able to defeat the PzIV relatively easily for similar cost" and "The Churchill is able to take out the PzIV"
The KV1 beats the PzIV because it has a combination of a gun decent enough to penetrate the PzIV, AND because it has enough armour and health to tank shots from the PzIV. If it didn't have both it couldn't do it.
I don't know why an argument sprang from this.
He thinks its the gun that makes KV-1 win vs P4, not the armor and health advantage.
That's the key difference.
And KV-1 got anything BUT a decent gun.
In fact, its the worst medium tank tier gun in the whole game to engage other vehicles with, so no, its not decent nor adequate.
Also, example of KV-8 further underlines that its exclusively durability advantage, because KV-8, using its 45mm meme gun can also beat P4 in a slugfest.
You have argument out of this, because that particular specimen will do everything and anything to try to spin narrative using twisted semantic games to "prove" his point even if its complete and utter bs.