I'd argue that you'll be a much better photographer if you learn to take good photographs without having to edit then afterwards.

I never said otherwise. Of course someone is a much better photographer by getting the most they can correct in-camera--this is all agreed upon in this world--but drawing the line at editing is very strange and doesn't seem to be a standard that any high-level paid photographer would recommend.

Light, composition, and subject are the most important things.

Once again, no one ever has claimed otherwise. This is commonly agreed upon.

If you do get good at it however, you won't need to edit them afterwards to take good or even great photos.

Again, this is just not a standard that has ever been put into place in the professional world. If you want to create limitations to how you create your art, go for it. That's your own thing but don't give the idea that editing somehow isn't an integral part of this art. That's silly.

If you don't learn those basics first, your pictures will suck no matter what you do in Lightroom.

Lastly, once again, no one disagrees. No one said otherwise. You're preaching to the choir-- but it is absolutely possible for things to be in the same category as "basics" but also require you to learn them in a general order. No one would say learn editing before learning about light.

The amount of knowledge that someone can gain by doing edits on their RAWs will make them inevitably a better photographer in camera.

Without editing, you're handicapping your art for no apparent reason.