Smart Contract Utility Explanation

This is what someone said when I said smart contracts were useful. Can anyone debunk it:

No, they are not useful and some of them are so insane that I can't believe anybody who spent more than 60 seconds thinking about them would ever think they're useful. It even touches on the fatal flaw of smart contacts while falsely claiming they're the solution:

If there’s a dispute between the two parties, a governmental third party must get involved. In many cases, this third party will also play a role in the creation of the contract.

OK, so what if there actually is a dispute? The contract says X is supposed to happen but enforcement is automatic based on certain conditions. But what about conditions that aren't able to be included in the contract? Sure rent is due on the first but the water was off for a week and the tenant doesn't owe the full amount. All contracts for stuff in the real world still have to abide by the legal system, which means ultimately courts need to be able to control what happens, even if someone absolutely refuses to play along.

Imagine you're trying to sell a house using smart contracts. Do you even own the house in the first place? Just because you have some token saying you do doesn't mean you actually do. If someone steals your private key, do they now own your house? If the token is not the actual definitive record of ownership (and it absolutely should not be), then you haven't removed reliance on third parties but just added an irrelevant, not legally-binding aspect to the system.

And of course all of this is assuming that we can make smart contracts perfect, without any errors. Code can and will have errors, and many people have already lost fortunes due to poorly-written contracts. If there's no enforcement system external to the contract, it's not usable in the real world. If there is an external system then the smart contract is no longer the definitive truth and serves no useful purpose.