Yeah, that's hilarious!
The main argument against static-typing is usually how cumbersome it is:
1. you're limited and have to fight the typechecker
2. it makes your code unreadable/verbose
I won't delve on how wrong (1) is, and even if I did, it'd be useless since I noticed that this is mostly a subjective argument, in the sense that everyone has different ways to look at and solve problems. Static typing is good for certain methodologies, but if your brain isn't wired that way, I can conceive that it's annoying for you.
But (2) is the really hilarious one! The one that makes me laugh every fucking time. Aside from the fact that if you have real types (like haskell, elm, ocaml, etc.) type annotations are optional. These dynamic-types people will go on about how you should actually write types in comments and make unit tests that catch type errors. Like WHAT IS EVEN THE POINT THEN? You're literally doing the work a compiler could do for you, while getting none of the advantages from it????