The most convincing argument against the change I have seen is the one for node runners. We could forecast an increase in data consumption on the blockchain sent. So this would force us to store data which could be stored elsewhere and accessed in my view more efficiently. And so this would end up in a smaller group of node runners. I don't know if this argument is correct but to me it is the most compelling one.

On the other side, the argument of Pieter Wuille about network fragmentation (his argument being about miners bypassing the public network) looks to me compelling. It was the 12th post here: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ

I don't know what the best thing to do is, as I am not knowledgeable enough about the implementation of Bitcoin, but I hope knowledgeable people keep debating without using emotional arguments and keep neutrality. To me what differentiates Bitcoin from other payment networks is its neutrality. You can be a North Korean hacker who stole money or a poor guy fighting inflation, both have equal opportunity to make transactions accepted on Bitcoin. In this regard, using the spam argument seems to me a less important one as it uses the nature of the transactions (and in turns lacks neutrality).