I think it all boils down to a fundamental disagreement over the conditions which define an “interesting” race. Pardon me if I have misinterpreted your viewpoints, and feel free to correct my statements, but as I see it:
@joey-zyla seems to advocate what I will term Definition A, that an “interesting” race is derived not just by the swapping of positions, but by the effort that drivers expend in navigating “difficult” tracks like Monaco, and making attempts to overtake, regardless of whether these attempts are successful, thereby creating a sense of tension.
@prisoner-monkeys seems to advocate Definition B, whereby an “interesting” race comes from having multiple drivers of relatively equal pace and competitiveness, creating multiple opportunities for, and instances of, overtaking, resulting in a visual spectacle, and race results that could very well have ramifications for the championship.
It is difficult to make a definitive blanket statement like “more overtaking does not produce more interesting racing”, when there are so many variables to consider – were the overtakes considered “difficult to accomplish”, did the track layout contribute to the ease of overtaking, were those overtakes mostly DRS “highway pass”, or were they “instant classics”, and so on.
Personally, I lean toward Definition B. As a general rule of thumb, I tend to regard a race where drivers succeed on trading positions and altering the results, as being more interesting than a race where finishing positions are set in stone by the end of the first corner/lap. Like all subjective judgements, it seems to be a matter of personal taste/preference. (Once again, if I have misconstrued your views, feel free to correct me.)