While his defense is valid, I still consider my issues valid. I don't consider interrupts by any measure 'necessary', considering I've been doing better without em in my experience.

Again, your understanding of no interrupts seems to precisely be 'I have to stand there and watch him do stuff, even if its clearly stupid.' when that isn't remotely the case. If your enemy performs a ludicrous attack there are other, equally valid ways of punishing him aside from cutting off his entire action.

Now sure I have gripes with the interrupt system, but both pose, to me, an equally diverse set of issues, and it comes down to preference. If that's the rule for a tourney? Sure, I'll abide, but if I don't have to do something in a way I don't particularly enjoy, then I wont. I suppose it comes down to personal taste and flavor.

Edit: in no way would avoiding or defending constitute an interrupt. Having your attack fail is not the same as having it interrupted. The attack was still carried out, and the continuity has not been broken. It could only count as an interrupt if the opponent wrote that his attack actually HIT you, because then you would be cancelling out his action, but that isn't allowed under just about any RP setting anywhere, so it isn't possible. Again, a similar understanding that most people not accustom to fighting without interrupts jump to. It really seems a lot of the dislike for no interrupts actually comes from misunderstandings and wrong ideas of how it actually works.