The contention is "what comes after segwit?" On the Core side is "nothing" (i.e., just segwit)
lol
In fact, the Core has many things after segwit; some of which are already done (compact blocks), signature aggregation, weakblocks, flexcaps, etc.
All anyone else has is MOAR BLOCKSIZE REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES and some heads on spikes.Yes some nice consequences of having more transactions, greater adoption, lower fees, faster confirmation - no head of the spikes is necessary.
You do realised that Bitcoin is not your toy, such that your personal agenda/opinion/perspective is irrelevant. Only what is best for bitcoin and the users matters.
More bullshit if you are trying to act as if there really is some kind of technical issue in the protocol (beyond segwit and other projects that core is working on and Gmaxwell listed in his post) that would achieve the various objectives that you listed (eg.. more transactions, greater adoption, lower fees, faster confirmations).
The reality is you are attempting to simplify the matter and to suggest that a 2mb limit increase through a hardfork is going to accomplish your listed objectives, but the reality, The One, is that a central goal of big blockers is emotional, namely the heads on spikes thinking.. which just is conspiratorial fantasy to keep asserting ill will of core and the various members and that core does not have the best intentions of bitcoin in their multiple disjointed heads.
What you and small blockers don't understand is that for Bitcoin to become more widely used, it will need bigger blocks to accommodate more transaction. Even Satoshi understood that. Sticking to small blocks isn't go to cut the mustard. That's the reality.