you are incorrect about being able to live with full blocks. It breaks the performance assumptions of the bitcoin protocol. for example zeroconf becomes totally unusable with full blocks. Nowhere in the satoshi whitepaper was 1MB blocks mandated. Vested interests that want a fee market are keeping the blocksize limited.
also bitcoin classic is still alive and well and the second most popular bitcoin with about 10% the number of bitcoin core nodes: https://coin.dance/nodes
there is no rational technical argument to keep the 1MB size
No, individual participants are keeping the blocksize limited. Nothing stopping you or anyone else from running Classic or XT if that's what they want to do.
They don't.
you do realize the core version requires opting OUT of and classic opting IN. Not sure if you are familiar with the difference in adoption rates between something that is optin vs optout. 10% have opted into classic. If the main devs say X must be the way, the vast majority will just go with that. If you will ignore this effect on the usage rates in the market, then there is not much point to debate as your position is that if people wanted it, they would use it, so whatever is being used is what people want.
That is like saying that people in USA could be using the EUR, they just all choose to use the USD. You cant ignore the existing infrastructure and environment and use the usage stats to confirm your bias. Well you can, but you would be biased.
I suggest you study a bit about comparative statistics
People are not born running bitcoin. They choose an implementation when they adopt it.
My post indicates that I believe this to be destructive. A vast majority is still a forked chain. You have deftly missed my point.