I see where you are all coming from on this, and I think you're just talking about two different things. One is which card is more likely to help you win the game, and the other is which card is conducive to a fun game (for both players) and by extension is better for your cube. For the moment, let's leave out the fact that if your cube has a few lure effects, acolyte's ability can become a one-sided pyroclasm, since I think most cubes are running 0 lure effects.
Imagine the case where the acolyte was the same except you switched it's ashmouth hound ability for "can't be blocked". From the point of view of trying to win, it's ability is obviously worse than "can't be blocked" because your opponent can always just not block (in which case it's ability is identical to the ability "can't be blocked"). If they block when they were better off not blocking, that just means your opponent misplayed. At against an opponent who plays correctly, the fact that it could affect the board is meaningless from the point of view of trying to win because your opponent can just not let that happen ever by not blocking. And if they are playing correctly (i.e. making the choice that makes it more likely for them to win) and let it affect the board, since magic is a zero-sum game, that means you would have been better off if it could just get through. So from the point of view of winning against an opponent who always makes the correct plays, I think if you had to choose between acolyte as is and an acolyte with "can't be blocked", the second is clearly always be better.
Even in comparison with actual latch seeker which lacks the human creature type and renowned ability, in terms of winning I think the question is, would an unblockable red latch seeker be worth running in your cube? I don't think the renowned ability and human creature type are enough on their own to make acolyte the better card as far as winning goes if it was blue. But I could see that maybe being wrong. Human synergy can be nice, and so can the extra damage and ability to sometimes trade with a slightly larger creature when blocking (or being able to sometimes stonewall a 1/1 instead of trade with it).
From the point of view of leading to interesting games though (which is totally orthogonal to what cards are better for wining) I get why people really like acolyte. It gives your opponents more outs by letting them not die where in some cases they would die to a "can't be blocked" version of it, but it still makes them pay a penalty sometimes. It also makes certain cards better blockers than normal (super high toughness dudes) and other worse (1/1 death touchers or x/2 first strikers), so it makes sideboarding more interactive and not just the first game. So the fact that acolyte's ability is worse than "can't be blocked" actually makes it more fun even if your opponent is always blocking it correctly because its ability is more interactive (assuming interactive = fun). It's more interesting to play with and against than latch seeker, even if the player playing it would have been more likely to win if acolyte had "can't be blocked".
Of course, if a "can't be blocked" acolyte would be only borderline playable in your cube, than the actual acolyte is total jank in your cube. But I think in a lot of non power max cubes a "can't be blocked" acolyte would make the cut power level wise.
Does what I said make sense to both sides?
edit: I know I'm largely just reiterating here; I'm just trying to split up the points of the two arguments.
