A day when you don't come across any problem you can be sure that you are travelling in a wrong way

Before I begin my rebuttal and case in favor of the Con position, I'd like to define some relevant terms.Problem- some obstacle or unwelcome situation; contrary to one's preferencesPerfection- a situation or thing having the quality of having or being perceived to have no flaws===Deconstruction of the Pro case===Pro's argument is best summed up by the following: the concept of not coming across a problem is conceptually impossible since the world is naturally imperfect. From this his conclusion is a bit hazy. I take it to mean that if we judge a situation or thing to be perfect then we must be wrong. If I'm mistaken in this characterization of his argument, I invite Pro to correct me in the next round. The problem I have with this argument is it's view on what is or can be called perfection. There seems to be two options, (a) that perfection is an ontologically objective quality or (b) that perfection exists only in one's perspective of something in accordance with their subjective preferences. It appears Pro has taken the (a) position while I will take the (b) position in order to refute it. Now let's see first the problems with (a) and then why (b) is necessarily correct.(A) Perfection as objectiveIn order for Pro's argument to work, perfection has to be something objective. If it wasn't then it could conceptually fit into someone's given preferences and thus 'exist' so to speak. In order for perfection not to exist in this world, it would have to exist as something akin to the world of Ideas in Plato's philosophy, Heaven in various monotheistic religions, Nirvana in Buddhism, etc. Regardless of the specific philosophy, perfection would not or could not exist in this world. There are of course problems with this position.The first and most obvious problem with this doctrine is the dubious existence of other worlds which various philosophies and religions conceive. For example, there's no universal agreement on the existence of Gods which would seem necessary to posit the existence of a supernatural realm. Plato's Forms are a different matter, but there are legitimate objections to such a view, among them the third man argument and nominalism.(B) Perfection as subjectiveThe conceptualization of perfection as full adherence to one's subjective preferences is more supported than the objective thesis. Ponder a thought experiment. Say that your only preference was to have enough food to live, have decent shelter, a nice family, and relative financial security. Now these conditions are not impossible to exist, at the very least they're far from conceptually impossible. Now if you were in the above situation, it would be incredibly hard to feel that your situation wasn't perfect. Just to say that 'real' perfection exists only in some otherworldly form wouldn't mean much to you if you had no interest in such a thing.===Conclusion===As we have seen, not only is the case for perfection as having objective ontology epistemically unsupported, but perfection as subjective fits in much better with the concept of preference satisfaction. So since preference satisfaction isn't prima facie impossible, Pro's point abut nothing in the world being perfect goes unsupported. Now since that part of his argument is shown false, the rest falls apart. Namely, his conclusion that there is some epistemic or conceptual problem in thinking that a situation is perfect is false if perfection can conceptually be attained.