I'm not attempting to put that perspective forward. My goal is not to advocate for uninspired praise (or even inspired non-Psalm praise). Rather, my goal is to inquire after more precision and better arguments. I don't think that EP needs to use logically flawed arguments, and I think that it hurts the EP case when poor arguments or overstated rhetoric is used.
Hence, I am challenging specifically the argument that "the standards have risen" which I see as a poor argument made with overstated rhetoric. I think the better argument is that the standard is the same (the RPW), followed by an exegetical argument against each case proposed for warrant of non-Psalms. And I think the better way forward in discourse is to address exegetical arguments about other cases and other elements, rather than keep returning to the point about the RPW which everyone agrees on. The IP objections being put forth are usually just discounted instead of being used as an occasion to offer better clarification of the exegetical case. Clearly the EP exegesis is not self-evident to all, and to rely on bad or false systematic arguments to substitute for the lack of exegetical articulation is counterproductive.
For example: I think the question about the Song of Songs is a good question. I think it points out the difference in exegesis used about the phrase "Psalms, Hymns, Songs." To say "it's not the kind of song intended" is a bad argument, because it is self-defeating by placing the concept of a song in general in the verse, apart from Psalms and Hymns (it is an inspired only argument, but self-defeating for EP which rejects inspired-only). To say " 'songs' in the verse doesn't stand alone as a concept, but is part of a proper name 'Psalms, Hymns, Songs' that refers to the Psalter" is a good argument. Regardless of which (if either) exegetical conclusion on the phrase is correct, the question offers the opportunity to clarify that exegetical point and support/challenge the varying interpretations. So I am trying to redirect to those points, and challenge what I see as misdirected rhetoric from counterproductive and logically flawed arguments.