I think what I said, if it was me, was a bit more nuanced than preferring Photoshop over Lightroom.
As background, if you don't already know this.
You can't open raw files in Photoshop, they need to be converted into a file that PS can read using ACR (Adobe Camera Raw): a program that comes with Photoshop.
Lightroom also uses ACR to process Raw files, but Lightroom is built around a database (catalogue) to manage your files (absent from Photoshop) and provides more flexible printing and other output tools than Photoshop does. Photoshop comes with Adobe Bridge to manage your files (tightly integrated with PS), but doesn't give the cataloguing tools that Lightroom gives you.
Once upon a time ACR was just a raw converter, with very few editing tools, used to process raw files before opening them in Photoshop. Nearly all editing was done in Photoshop. Capture One was originally a competitor for ACR (before Lightroom existed), and it was assumed you would use Capture One alongside Photoshop.
Apple brought out, the now defunct, Aperture program which was an "all in one solution" (like Lightroom) with a clear focus on the photographers market. Adobe then released its competitor to Aperture called Lightroom, which from a fairly simple beginning has added more and more editing features, as well as improving its database and output tools. Capture One, while starting out from a different place, has become more Lightroom like over the years, e.g adding cataloguing tools. But, Capture One is still very different to Lightroom in many respects.
As ACR (and LR) has developed and increased its editing tools working directly on raw files, the need for Photoshop has declined. When working on Raw files you don't physically alter the raw files, you simply create a series of commands that tell Lightroom/ACR what the file should look like when you view it in ACR (or LR), or how it should look once exported as a JPEG or TIFF or PSD.
Photoshop, works on the "raster" or pixel files (TIFF or PSD files) that ACR/LR exports. This has the immediate impact that in PS you are working on files that are much larger than in Lightroom, which can rapidly grow in size as work on your edits in Photoshop.
But, working directly on pixel files allows more precise and subtle edits than can be made in Lightroom (not normally an issue, but it can be). Cloning and healing, and object selection all tend to work a bit better and faster in PS. Sliders and curve tools work a bit more smoothly and some things like composites and layer blending can't be done at all in LR.
But for me the big reason for photoshop is the layers, as this gives a structured way of building up your edit a step at a time and to easily keep track of those edits; switch them off and on individually or in groups, and easily adjust their strength. For example, f you use an external de-noising program (or any other external program that works as a plugin with PS) you can apply the de-noising on a photoshop layer and then adjust the strength of the de-noising from inside Photoshop.
So while there are some technical reasons for "maybe" preferring Photoshop, it's the layer based workflow that I like. I like the structured approach it offers and the feeling of being able to see what I have done, being in control of where my edits are going and being able to see where they have come from.
PS is much more difficult to lean than LR, and the benefits will depend on how you want to work, and the type of work you do. There are many more reasons to prefer PS, and many reasons to prefer LR. Most people would probably benefit from learning, and using, both.
There are lots of videos around comparing specific features of LR vs PS and how the "same" tools work slightly differently between the two. Here is a recent one comparing the new masking tools in LR and ACR with the masking tools in PS. The video use a PS plugin called TK8, but it's only providing shortcuts to PS tools and shouldn't influence the comparison.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlmpC3F9Yg