5000 validating full nodes is already not enough. For bitcoin to reach the potential people like you and I believe it has, it needs to be 10-100x that.

The block size, if changed, should be reduced. Global consensus is extremely expensive when multiplied across that many cpus and disks.

Your calling for the block-size debate to end is insincere - this post is your demonstrable commitment to wishing to continue the debate. It's just a sneaky technique to try to get the last word. Don't do that. Don't insinuate that your arguments are the be-all, end-all, but instead speak your piece and let people decide for themselves. That's what cryptocurrencies (and voluntary interactions) are about. :)

Perhaps Bitcoin isn't the one we end up using. It's terribly suited for retail use, or for high-volume, low-value transactions. Allowing a bunch of noisy, US-centric organizations that aren't hurt by excessive centralization to push their objectives over everyone elses' isn't really in the spirit of voluntaryism.

If people wanted bigger blocks, they would run one of the hardforks, or they would use (or launch) an altcoin that serves them better. People aren't doing that - they're using bitcoin-as-it-is-today (and the fad chasers are going to Ethereum, with spectacularly poor outcomes for them).

Diversify, and stop trying to convince people that your worldview is the One True Answer or insinuating that discussion and learning for all interested parties isn't valid or useful.