I've only just looked at this as It has been done to death on more than one thread in the past.
My take is that it's "Horses for courses". Most of my instruction was done in the RAF where the P and P technique was the SOP in nealry all cases. This was due to the fact that the product was ultimately (ideally) destined for fast jets where the usual technique is to put the VVIP (Velocity Vector Impact Point) of the Head Up Display on the point you want to touch down and drive it down on power, usually with the AoA (Angle of Attack) as the main reference. A true P and P technique.
The one exception in the inventry was the aircraft I spent three years reaching on - the Chipmunk. This was largely because the full flap limiting speed of 71 knots was quite close to the approach speed of 60 knots (65 in some cases) and there was small margin with ptoential for an overstress if the P and P technique were used. The students then went on to the JP/Tucano and learned the P and P technique, in a coule of circuits usually. It was certainly quite relevant in the Tucano which actually had an eye level AoA guage and an AoA indexer - which due to a monumental cock up was still referenced to the much lighter Embraer version and didn't work properly.
Later, at my first civilan club we used P and P (in PA28s) as the CFI favoured it. Personally, I find it is easier for the student to get their heads around, particulalry if they weren't born Chuck Yeager. I have also tought pitch for speed in the flying club environment, I have found it's much harder. In fact, with one student who couldn't grasp the concept and we were spending ages in the circuit just trying to sort out her final approach, I then tried P and P and she got it straight away with the comment "Why didn't you show me this earlier?".
And in my experience, P and P leads to more consistant landings at the desired touchdown point.