All I heard was that the block size was not increased and this led to the creation of Bitcoin Cash.
Having been around to experience the whole ordeal, I feel that sentence doesn't really do it justice, heh. Suffice to say there was a great deal more nuance and complexity involved. The short version is that (almost) everyone agreed that more throughput was required, but couldn't agree on the best way to achieve it. Some wanted a small increase and the option to explore off-chain ideas, some wanted larger on-chain increases, while others wanted a mix of the two. It's also worth noting that
, but never went through with it. There was a lot going on at the time.
I have no doubt that increasing the effective block size at some point will be part of that solution, but it cannot be the only solution for the reasons discussed above. Just ramping up the block size by a couple of orders of magnitude destroys bitcoin's long term security and completely centralizes the system, as has happened with shitcoins like BSV.
At the time, during the "civil war", we naturally didn't have this power of hindsight to know for sure what would happen, but thankfully this is the mindset that prevailed.
As I've said repeatedly through this whole saga, I think the correct approach here is to work on scaling, and not to arbitrarily ban certain transactions in order to allow other transactions to be processed more cheaply.
Well said.
Anyone proposing placing restrictions on the varieties of transactions that are permitted is missing the point of all this, I feel. There are other projects catering to that kind of approach. If you have a centralised ledger, you can easily prevent stuff like ordinals. All you have to do is completely surrender all your freedom and treat transactions in the exact same way banks do.
What a bargain! 
But we don't have a centralised ledger here and we value our freedom (or, at least, some of us do), which is why we call such projects altcoins. People should go and play with those if they like banning stuff.