Look, you seem to misunderstand the nature of this conversation. We are not "in an argument" in order to "find a solution" to some mutually-understood "problem". We are instead in this situation where I'm simply stating that there is currently no "problem" to "solve".
So, if I may be presumptuous enough to say, I've established that those in support of the hard fork are not "attacking" Bitcoin, as having larger than 1 MB blocks is the plan that Bitcoin has had since its inception.
Now we move to whether there is a problem to solve. I think a 1 MB restriction that limits Bitcoin (and by 'Bitcoin', I mean the main Bitcoin blockchain, not a sidechain, a third party run micropayment channel network, or some other off-chain alternative to Bitcoin main), under any meaningful mass-adoption scenario, to 1 transaction per person, every year or so (at best), at the cost of a high fee (e.g. $30), is not the Bitcoin I want. It's a problem for me, and for anyone who signed up for this 'electronic cash' experiment, and Satoshi's vision of a Bitcoin blockchain that handles thousands of tps.
Not only that, even this poor use-case scenario, of a Bitcoin acting as an expensive high-value transaction network, is much less likely than a much worse outcome: Bitcoin fails to gain mass adoption, is eventually superseded by another blockchain, leaving all Bitcoin holders with worthless cryptocoins.
You claim there is no problem, but I contend that the majority would disagree with you. And that's fine. If you really want to stick to a 1 MB blockchain, you can. No one is going to force you. But I encourage anyone who wants a Bitcoin that is not absurdly expensive to use, and has the technical flexibility to achieve mass adoption, to push for the hard fork.