Agree even the puppets that are made for practical filming often get fully replaced with CGI anyway. Its just people like to hear practical even if it is not true.

I know you're using hyperbole, but that's just factually untrue. I know many avid moviegoers who care about the craft just as much as the final product itself. Is it every one of my friends? No, absolutely not, some will still go see whatever Disney or MCU schlock is being put out now simply because of the brand label, but that's far from the general consensus. I'm aware that this is all anecdotal, but still, please try to overgeneralize a little less; the more frequently half-true opinions like that are spouted, the more likely it is that they become the truth (at least in the eyes of the big studios)

The inputs affect the outputs.

Practical effects generally need to be planned before filming and that planning seems to both force restraint on the director and planning of the shot, which forces the director to decide on the visuals early in the process.

Practical effects also generally helps the actors give better performances since there are more visual cues informing emotional states.

There is also an uncanny valley that CGI can still fall in.

I agree that audiences likely don't care about the difficulty of the shot, but it seems to affect how audiences receive the output.