That's why those examples for remakes don't count in my opinion. Charlton Heston Ten Commandments or Ben Hur, for example, is the first modern film version. Silent film is a whole different medium, like a stage play, or a book. And has there been remakes of 1950s Ten Commandments or Ben Hur that come remotely close to the quality of those "originals"?
It's easy to "prove" any premise if you cheat by defining your terms to pre-emptively exclude any evidence that doesn't fit your premise. You've already been given numerous examples of remakes that were, in fact, good, if not better than the originals.
It's just plain wrong and lazy to pretend that an entire category of storytelling
is uniformly bad. You can only judge the quality of each individual entry in the category, because of course
they're going to vary widely and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. I mean, how does that even make sense as a premise? Different remakes are made by different creators and different studios, they have different casts and crews, they have different budgets and different objectives. How is it remotely logical to claim that a remake by, say, Joss Whedon or Christopher Nolan or Kenneth Branagh is going to be equally as bad as a remake by Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan? Different people undertaking the same type of project are going to get different results. So it's bizarre to blame the category for the results rather than the specific makers and circumstances of the individual films.
Certainly Sturgeon's Law applies; 90% of everything
is crud, so it's easy to look at the 90% of bad entries in any given genre and claim it as proof that the genre as a whole is invalid. But that requires ignoring the 10% of entries in that genre that are good or even great -- and it requires ignoring the 90% of crud in every other
genre. It's hardly as if original movies have any better a track record than remakes.