You are right that a naturalized citizen cannot become POTUS. But you don't need to be born on US soil of two citizen parents to be born a US citizen, and most people who've examined the law and the historical background have concluded that "born a citizen" means the same as "natural born citizen." Many people disagree. But in any case, while your teacher was right that he was ineligible, there's gray area between his case and the NBC definition you propose.
Your mission is spreading disinformation.
This part is true, but misleading. The topic isn't "citizen" but is instead "natural citizen."
and most people who've examined the law and the historical background have concluded that "born a citizen" means the same as "natural born citizen."
This part is also true, and again misleading. It presupposes that the opinion of a quantity of people means the same thing as "true." (Fallacy ad numerum .)
This group "most people" happen to be wrong. The fact that a "born citizen" has been stripped of citizenship because of his inaction proves that a "born citizen" isn't a "natural citizen."
Many people disagree. But in any case, while your teacher was right that he was ineligible, there's gray area between his case and the NBC definition you propose.
And of course if there is a "gray" area, you and your allies want to err on the side of RECKLESSNESS.