Perhaps I'm missing something here. Argument 1 seems to basically be that Java code is bigger than Lisp code. Argument 2 is that big code bases tend to use all of a language's features.
Why couldn't you solve the second problem with the first? As you've already pointed out, Lisp code is smaller. Thus, you don't have to worry about the "large code base" problem like you would with java.
A couple lines of particularly dense Perl can make life pretty terrible, e.g. compared to many thousands of lines of getter-setter Java. You can pack more language features into a smaller area with a more expressive language. It follows that a smaller area might hold more complexity and likely more opportunities for errors, and therefore bugs.
At the very least, we can say "the LOC-bug relationship doesn't necessarily hold across languages". It's a useful rule-of-thumb, not a universal law.
That is only the case with actual complexity required by the problem, not incidental complexity caused by the limitations of the language (such as is common with Java).
Why couldn't you solve the second problem with the first? As you've already pointed out, Lisp code is smaller. Thus, you don't have to worry about the "large code base" problem like you would with java.