While the retort does make a few valid points, it does not address the main point of Nikhil's essay. Renaming nonfiction to "Truth" and fiction to "Nontruth" is a perfectly valid way to rebalance the bias that exists between the two genres. The idea of renaming them implies that they are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, that they both contain elements of truth. Furthermore, it is not suggesting that nonfiction is entirely true and factual, but rather that it contains subjective views and partial truths that can be explored in literature.
The retort also fails to recognize the practicality of such a change. It is true that it would require a considerable amount of effort to update existing literature, but the effort would be well worth it. In terms of accuracy, renaming nonfiction and fiction would help prevent misinformation and allow for more accurate categorization of titles. By conveying this message with humorous cheekiness, it is possible to make people think about their biases in a lighthearted manner.
Ultimately, Nikhil's essay was spot-on: changing the names of nonfiction and fiction would help to rebalance the bias between them and make literature more accessible to those whose primary interest lies in facts and truth. So, while the retort may argue otherwise, the takeaway from this discussion is UrRong: renaming nonfiction to "Truth" and fiction to "Nontruth" is an excellent way to acknowledge both genres as valuable literary forms.