Most arguments against it revolve around the ignorance of the average voter.

So do most arguments against voting.
If it works in NYC, where a substantial portion of the electorate is illiterate (and puts people like AOC into office) it can be made to work anywhere.

Most arguments based on FairVote propaganda anyway, and by lazy journalists who don't bother to ask anyone else. Talk to some real voting theorists and you'll get some better arguments against it.

Here's one: Burlington 2009 (en.wikipedia.org)

Basically, you had a 3-way race between a Progressive, a Democrat, and a Republican. Most of the Republicans listed the Democrat second -- but those 2nd place votes never counted because the Republican made it to the final two against the Progressive who won due to receiving 2nd place votes from the eliminated Democrat. The Republican couldn't have won against either other candidate, but served as a spoiler allowing the progressive to win an election he would have lost to the Democrat. All because the Republican voters believed FairVote lies that "RCV eliminates the spoiler effect so you can safely vote for the candidate you honestly like best."

This is an example of the "center-squeeze effect", where a moderate candidate with broad consensus support (and lots of 2nd place votes) is eliminated early by factions on both sides. It's fairly common and kind of directly refutes the common FairVote claim that RCV helps elect moderate candidates.