I don't really think there is an argument against drilled rotors. I think the discussion is whether they are purely for looks or if there is some kind of benefit.
One cannot compare apples to oranges, and thus one cannot compare their old worn-out pads and rotors to new ones, drilled or otherwise. It appears Brakemotive makes quality rotors, and that in itself would be an improvement, drilled or not.
If done properly and made by a quality manufacturer, I can't really see the downside to drilled rotors. After all, we do a LOT of stuff to our trucks strictly for the looks.
But there is no scientific argument that they brake better. It is just not physically possible.
The holes cannot cool the rotor more because lateral holes move zero air through them when the rotor is turning. Those of us who fly are very familiar with the term "boundary layer" and the fact that air cannot suddenly turn 90 degrees sideways and enter or exit a lateral hole in a brake rotor while it is spinning. There is no airflow through those holes when the rotor is turning at speed at all, simply because the innermost microscopic layer of air next to the rotor surface cannot suddenly break away from that surface to flow 90 degrees.
Modern pad materials do not need to be "de-gassed" or whatever that holdover from brake shoes from the 1950s was.
So if there is no air flow through those holes, we are left with simply the amount of metal that must be used to absorb the heat. Does a greater surface area result in a cool and possibly better rotor?
Again, no. It doesn't make scientific sense. Look at the barrel of a modern rifle. Rifles that are made to shoot to the same point of impact shot-after-shot, in spite of the potential for greater heat build-up in the barrel seriously impacting the accuracy of the shot, are made with greater mass in the barrel, NOT greater surface area. This is what they call a "bull barrel" and it is the solely the diameter of the barrel that is larger. Serious police and military sniper rifles NEVER use holes, flutes or other devices to increase the surface area; they use greater mass to absorb the heat. To maintain accuracy shot after shot, the metal must absorb the heat, not try to dissipate it as soon as possible ... which, in the case of both rifle barrels and brake rotors, could never be done in time to affect performance anyway.
So, if you remove any mass whatsoever, you lessen the ability to absorb the heat and you lessen the performance of the rotors.
Now, going back to the argument that they are for looks and they do little harm, one could argue that the holes remove so little mass in comparison to the overall weight that it really doesn't decrease performance to any appreciable amount. I agree with this.
So, scientifically, given the same quality of rotor and the same size, there is no way drilled rotors can increase braking performance over regular rotors. If anything, scientifically they decrease performance. But again that would be such a miniscule amount that is one chooses to add them for the looks and one finds a quality manufacturer, go for it. There is no possible cooling effect from the holes, but they don't really decrease the mass too much if designed properly.
The ones that worry me are the ones where too many holes are drilled everywhere, strictly for the looks and with no regard for the internal cooling fins (that actually DO cool rotors significantly.)
So, in my opinion, formed from what I consider scientific evidence as a former airplane pilot, performance vehicle tester and professional shooter, the holes give no advantages; quality rotors from quality manufacturers do give an advantage, holes or no holes.
Dissenting arguments are persecuted by the church of science.
Thread hijack. Some of his theory is observable via testing. Then came quantum physics flying in the face of it. Now science is working out the unifying theory to make sense of why the universe is so nuts and two theories at odds with each other seem to both be correct and wrong? 
