You first claimed Bitcoin is an ICO because someone had to pay for the electricity in 2009, therefore scarce resources namely fiat currency were sacrificed in order to obtain bitcoin.

This is correct. But I pointed out the electricity burned to obtain bitcoin from mining is LOST, not given to a third party like it is an ICO.

You countered by saying "but you still pay electric companies derp". To which I responded, the electric companies got nothing in 2009 that they wouldn't have gotten by regular Joe running his consumer PC as before. Anything over that amount was so small as to be immaterial.

This counterpoint of yours is also a Red Herring since the electric companies had nothing whatsoever to do with Satoshi Nakamoto's launch of Bitcoin. The two entities aren't related in the slightest. Conversely, in an ICO, the people who receive the proceeds of the sale are the issuers of the new token, as in a traditional IPO.

Now at this point, it appears you're just trying to redefine the common vernacular "ICO" to mean the inception of any digital token under the sun. Ironically, the phrase ICO came about precisely because of how closely ICOs resemble traditional IPOs.

You then handwave about how Satoshi got fabulously wealthy off of BTC, which is another Red Herring and not to mention extraordinarily tone deaf. Satoshi INVENTED "blockchain": the thing that allows people to launch ICOs. Satoshi's fortune is well-deserved.

Fundamentally, people paid for Counterparty tokens in bitcoin, just as people paid for Bancor tokens in ether

No. Tokens burned in a proof of burn event are gone forever. No one receives them. They are NOT paid to anyone. Tokens are deleted - POOF GONE.

The fact that the issuer chose to burn that bitcoin rather than buy a new lamborghini with them

Excuse me? Who was the "issuer" of Counterparty?