Charles,
Your instructor gave preferences, apparently without passing on much of a foundation.
There is nothing wrong with those CZ pistols that are based on the CZ75.
There have been problems reported with one or two of the newer polymer CZ pistols.
I've worked with two CZ 75 compacts, ended up buying the last one despite my resolve to buy no more guns.
Recommending a Smith M&P9 over a full-sized CZ 75D is comparing apples to oranges.
Two different trigger mechanisms, two different sizes, two different weights, two different safety mechanisms.
The Smith would be lighter, more compact, and its trigger would be easier for you to learn. It's a simpler pistol, and that may be the reason behind his recommendation.
Define your own anticipated uses.
If strictly a range toy, get whichever you like.
If concealed carry, the Smith has a size advantage.
The instructor's admonition against CZ pistols could be because they have a long double-action trigger pull, and a more complicated (slightly) operation that involves dropping the hammer after firing. The Smith doesn't have that.
As far as Smith & Wesson revolvers over Rugers goes, that never fails to open up a metric ton of arguments.
I'll state my own opinions, based on having carried both brands in uniform, working professionally with several samples of each over the past few years, currently owning several of both, and discussing both brands with custom gunsmiths:
The Smith is more refined.
The Smith is not what it used to be.
The Ruger is a more modern design, not based on updates of the Smith's century-old basic mechanism.
The Ruger was designed from the ground up to handle both higher pressures and a higher volume of sustained use.
The Smith will tend to go out of time before the Ruger will (comparing DAs here).
Both companies have suffered from quality control issues recently.
Both companies have turned out overly-torqued barrels leaving canted sights.
The Smith has had internal dimension changes over the past few years that leave it (full-sized models, not the Js) with a stiffer DA trigger and one less tunable.
Both brands use MIM parts.
The Ruger is a more durable gun.
I am aware opposing opinions will follow, but at least I've given you the reasons behind mine.
If you don't plan to shoot 40,000 rounds of hot loads through a revolver, the choice will make no difference to you. Pick the one you think you like, and then get a set of grips that'll fit your hand if what comes on it doesn't.
Understand that the outa-box feel is not final, you can find numerous aftermarket grips to change how the gun feels in your hand for both brands.
The Springfield XDs are a decent pistol, but not superior to a good Glock in my opinion, and they do need to be cleaned.
I've carried Glocks in uniform & I've owned two Springfields.
I am not a Glock fanboy, but I still own five, and I sold the Springfields.
In your situation, I'd pass on an auto till you've got a more solid foundation behind you.
I'd suggest strongly that you learn the basics with a simpler revolver.
Failing that, the Glock, Smith, and Springfield will all be easier to learn than the CZ, because they're simpler to operate & have shorter & lighter trigger pulls.
It's good that you took a class, but when an instructor makes recommendations for or against, ask him why next time.
Denis