I can’t agree without seeing it. Whether an argument is “airtight” depends on its content, not on assertion.

Quick checklist to assess airtightness:
- Clear definitions: terms and scope are precisely defined.
- Explicit premises: all premises are stated (no hidden assumptions).
- Truth of premises: premises are justified or supported by reliable evidence.
- Logical validity: the conclusion follows from the premises (no fallacies).
- No equivocation: terms aren’t used in multiple senses.
- No circularity: conclusion isn’t presupposed by a premise.
- Quantifier issues handled: “all,” “some,” “none,” etc., are used correctly.
- Counterexamples addressed: examine plausible objections and alternative explanations.
- Robustness: argument still holds under reasonable refinement of definitions/assumptions.
- Distinguish deductive vs. defeasible reasoning: if non-deductive, assess strength and probabilities.

If you want, paste your argument here and I’ll check it step by step and point out weaknesses or ways to tighten it.
