There is less network latency, less bandwidth requirements, and less hard drive space requirements with smaller blocks. Those three things combined result in a more decentralized network. Small block solutions being more decentralized than big block solutions once they are both massively scaled is not a lie, and not worth debating as there's a lot of research (plus simple common sense) that backs up that reasoning.

Although you are harping on small blocks, it sounds like you ultimately have more of an issue with Segwit/LN. Where things get a little murkey is when you start comparing The Lightning Network with big block solutions, but IMO arguing that the centralized PBOC on-chain payment channel is more "decentralized" than multiple LN payment channels ran by many entities is a lie.

Even if LNs end up not working (which I don't think will be the case), or even working but not being the most ideal solution, there are also payment channels available by utilizing Atomic Swaps and ALT coins. A small block solution plus alt coin payment channels via atomic swaps is extremely more decentralized tham any big block solution (no LN is necessary). Point Blank. Period. It is alarming to me that you are claiming to have everything all figured out, but you haven't even looked into Atomic Swaps... c'mon man.

There are two sides to the argument, but I personally see more merit in Core's roadmap than Bitcoin Cash's road map when it comes to decentralization (even if it's dumb luck that atomic swaps end up being more fruitful than the LN). To call them liars when there is legitimacy to their claims and bullies when they (at least think) that they are acting in Bitcoin's best interest is rediculous.

Saying that Core is forcefully anointing its roadmap while the big blockers are noble and peacefully protesting in support of their roadmap's legitimacy is naive. Sure, the big blockers solution was defeated by the small blockers , but it wasn't for lack of trying. They tried multiple times to take over with Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic. These efforts were largely rejected by the community. On the other hand, Segwit/LN was mostly embraced by the community. At the end of the day it was the community that had the final say through Social Consensus. Just as Social Consensus killed Segwit2x, it embraced the Segwit/LN roadmap. Blaming that wholly on Core is disingenuous. The users and community should share in the blame, because at the end of the day they had the final say.

You must not visit Twitter very often. You should because that is where most of the crypto debate is taking place. Twitter even patted themselves on the back for it.
You act like Bitmain is the most vocal proponent of Bitcoin  Cash... he is not. Although Jihan is probably the most reasonable and level headed person on both sides of the debate (probably because he will be just fine no matter which SHA256 chain thrives), but he himself can acknowled the propaganda that is being spread, and the attacks BCH proponents have waged. BCH proponents have claimed that BCH is the real Bitcoin on numerous occasions across multiple platforms. Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and John McAfee are probably the most prominent and vocal propogators of the attacks, but there are also 100s of shills doing so as well. Maybe you are living under a rock?

Furthermore, the BCH proponents are spouting off lies themselves by claiming BCH is peer-to-peer decentralized cash, and arguing that scaling via raising the block size infinitely does not eventually centralize the network too... even more centralized than multiple competing LNs. That is deceiving, and those are lies or ignorance. Either way, the BCH can not take the high road here... they have no grounds to stand on.

Core has stated that they are not opposed to raising the block size if it has to be done. Just that raising block size infinitely like big blockers want is not ideal, and that Bitcoin should be made to be more efficient with as small of blocks as possible.

I do not deny that vulnerabilities and doomsday scenarios exist, however unlikely they may be, but you are acting like similar attack vectors don't exist on BCH too by only arguing one side of the argument. That is misleading to your readers.

Furthermore, you have always overstated the relevancy of extremely low chance attack vectors that no one else really worries about. Most of the vulnerabilities with dPoS for instance that you claimed would kill Bitshares and Steem remain a non-factor. You are effectively a blockchain technology hipster. Nothing is ever good enough or secure enough. Don't get me wrong because that is good to a point, but you need to be realistic when it comes to practical expectations of the tech and its algorithms. All facets of technology (not just cryptocurrency tech) have vulnerabilities and pitfalls.

You need to understand that at the end of the day cryptocurrencies are distributed software programs, and if these problems that all cryptocurrencies face collectively are solved, then they will be updated to address the new twchnological breakthroughs. You've got to deal with what you got though. You can't live in fantasy land where everything is legit decentralized and no vulnerabilities exist...

This is the real world, and the revolution can not wait for an ideal state of perfectness because such perfection will never exist. If we wait for such unobtainable perfection, then the revolution will never occur.