This "debate" seems to come from oversimplification.
Once you recognize that verb forms don't have to be limited to one meaning, as the reasonable experts recognize these days, this answers the vast majority of general questions, and leaves only specific usages to be disputed.
I already gave the examples from English to illustrate, but I'll mention them again. Everyone will agree that in English the verb form "eats" is a so-called "simple present" whose meaning is an ongoing repeated action applicable to the present. But what about the following?
- "It happened yesterday. He comes home, sees the apple, and eats it." (Here, the meaning of "eats" is singular completed action in the past)
- "Next week, he eats dinner late all week." (Here, the meaning of "eats" is a planned ongoing repeated action in the future)
So while it's called the "simple present", that doesn't mean it doesn't have other types of usages.
I personally refer to the prefix conjugation as "future" and the suffix conjugation as "past", because I believe these are the simplest terms to use. I recognize that the terminology we use to describe these forms is just that: terminology. It does not actually present a comprehensive and nuanced view of the usage of the verb form. And no terminology can possibly do that (without being at least a page long, which is not useful as terminology). Therefore I believe any set of terms is possible to use "future/past", "imperfect/perfect", "irrealis/realis" or whatever you want. But whenever someone says that one of these sets of terms is "wrong", that's when I have a problem. They are all "wrong", and therefore they are "right".