My take on the RAW vs JPEG discussion.
1. All sensors record RAW data in the camera
2. If camera is set to RAW for record, then nothing more is done to the 'captured image' until someone processing in post using a wide selection of processing options.
3. If camera is set to JPEG capture, the particular camera manufacturer processes the 'captured image' very quickly before the photographer sees it in the camera's play back screen. Hence the image is processes. In addition there are setting options in the camera that can be selected by the photographer that affect the jpeg completed image.

One pro (Randall Hodges)that I took a class from shoots Canon and jpeg only and has numerous settings he teaches to mimic various old film styles. He states that all of the images he prints and sells are 'straight out of the camera (SOOC).'

One easy test anyone can do is to set their camera to record both RAW and jpeg images. Shoot a variety of images and download them to your computer. Then compare the same image in both formats side by side. The RAW image will most likely not look as good as the jpeg image initially. Then process the RAW image and compare them again. I think this will help clarify the RAW v jpeg question for many photographers.

You don't seem at all confused about the differences shooting RAW vs JPEG.

For me it all comes down to one thing....

I've never seen a photo that didn't need at least a little tweaking in post processing, and that's MUCH better done working from a RAW file than it is from a JPEG.

Something you forgot... Sometimes it's necessary to shoot JPEGs, such as when the images are needed immediately, when there's no time to do a RAW conversion and work on the image. (When that's the case, I usually shoot RAW + JPEG, to still have the option of later make more tweaks to the image in post-processing if I wish.)

Most cameras today capture 14 bit images. A few even do full 16 bit. Regardless, when a RAW file is edited most software works with it as a 16 bit file.

JPEGs out of camera are 8 bit. The difference is that 8 bit files have 256 tonalities per color channel, while 16 bit have 65,536 tonalities per channel! 16 bit images simply have a much more comprehensive "color palette" to work with. One of the ways this difference shows up in images is "banding" in smooth tonal gradations. That ugly effect is far more likely to occur in an 8 bit image than in 16 bit.

Yes, there are times when RAW allows you to correct a shooting mistake. Getting it "right" in-camera is always best. But it's almost never 100%. By no means is RAW just a covering up one's "inadequacies" as a photographer, as some like to suggest. Those "JPEG only" people never make any mistakes, I'm sure. But even their images would be better... sometimes a great deal better... if they instead shot RAW and did some finishing work on them. Working with RAW files is just part of the process of making your images the very best they can be. But, hey, if your JPEGs straight out of camera are "good enough" for your purposes, there's no one stopping you from shooting them.