Power/speed/elevator/slope arguments are a different thread, and have surely been done to death!
Airlines these days require stable approaches from at least 500', and most now from 1000'. I suspect that this is where this CFI is coming from. (When I first started on jets, it was a constant deceleration approach - which is nicer to fly, but less forgiving. The stable approach is much better when considering safety over an entire fleet.)
Is it appropriate for a light aircraft? I would think that the philosophy is correct, especially for students, as it allows them to concentrate on the landing rather than the configuration.
The distance though - if it is appropriate for a 737 with 130 knot approach speed to be stable at 500', then a C150 with a 70 knot approach speed should I think, use half that - 2 or 300' would be more appropriate, I should think.
Why not put this argument to your CFI - you recognise the training value of the stable approach, and fully intend to teach it, however you feel 2 or 300' to be a more representative value of airline flying?