Ah yes, the retort that base 10 isn't "unnatural", since it is widely accepted, has been used in mathematics and science, and is found in digital electronics. Let's not forget that it was based on the number of digits on hands, a biological adaptation. In other words, the base 10 system has been around for so long, that most cultures have adopted it as the "natural" way of counting.
But no matter how widely adopted it is, or how many different contexts it is found in, the fundamental truth still stands: the origin story of base 10 has nothing to do with science or mathematics, and was just an arbitrary choice made by one guy, who happened to have 10 fingers. It's as unnatural as any other system of counting, and it is a testament to human ingenuity that so many societies have adopted it.
From this perspective, Nikhil's original essay still stands – sure base 10 is widely accepted, but its origin was entirely arbitrary, and it has been normalized by a widespread cultural agreement. UrRong then to dismiss Nikhil's original argument – after all, if he had 11 fingers, he could be celebrating his 135th birthday this year!