HRD is essentially a modern electronic version of very VERY old fashioned multiple exposure printing.
In the pioneering era of photography, photo emulsions were often very very slow, as is single digit ISO values, whilst the 'dynamc' range' of what they could render shadeds of gray, rather than absolute black or whites,wasn't all that great.
It was a very common practice, then, to make multiple exposures, for high-lights, shaddow and mid-tones, and then blend them in printing to take 'detail' from each negative and put it on the priting paper,probably with a fair bit of local exposure control, called 'dodging and burning'.
As such, HDR is basically a re-invention of a very very old technique, in a more automated form, and if you poo-poo it (as your tutor reportedly does) then by association you are essentially denying the merit or validity of a whole raft of particularly 'early' photographs where it was used to compensate for the rudimentary chemistry of the era, in exactly the same way t's been re-invented as HDR in the electronic era to compensate for the low sensitivity of rudimentary electronic photo-sensors!
Where the contention starts to seep in is in the over use and over cooking of HDR, and a skew exposure stacking technique known as 'bass relief'... this is the practice of 'exposure stacking' both a positive image transparency, and a negative image transparency, that would effectively cancel each other out and result in a homogeneous mid-grey print, if given equal exposure, but, given slightly different exposures, in printing, can create some very very accurate localized exposure control and tonal subtlety, or reduce the image to a very fine almost pure 'line art' lithographic' image, exposing only 'edges' on the print, or in between creating some quite surreal part positive, part negative images, for 'effect' in print.
HDR, with the ability to manipulate the response curve of the base exposures being exposure merged, then offers opportunity for some very very subtle exposure merges or some incredibly bizarre ones, depending on what you do or don't do with it.. and n the digital domain, its an awful lot easier, to do on a computer, where you can see instantly the effect of any manipulation and a 'back' button to undo them f they don't work, than trying to do it in chemicals and paper, where it was a lot harder, more expensive, took a lot more time and effort, and you ddn't se the final effect until it was all done, and if you didn't like it, try, try again!
HERE, the ease and cheapness of the digi-domain has encouraged far more who would never have even tried, let alone succeeded to have a go... and so many of them, encouraged more by notions of 'artistic merit', the more surreal effects, has resulted in a lot of very poorly conceived 'and even even more badly executed examples being ever more widely publicized, popularizing HDR to the point its now an 'inbuilt filter' (eh!> Do they know what a REAL filter even is?!?!?) on some cameras offers it as a 'feature', to be used with even more abandon and less know-how, probably eve more badly than usual..... which probably explains a lot of people's condemnation of the practice, at any level, for any intent,
B-U-T does not detract from the fact that it remains, merely a modern automated means of very very ancient photographic practices, from the pioneering era, and what matters is not the means but the ends, ad whether those means are justified by the ends... unfortunately having suffered so many examples painful to my retina, they so often aren't.... but that does't mean that the technique has no place or legitimacy... merely that far too many people employing, badly, it probably don't!