Let me make a counter point. And, I am not really arguing this case because I own both these lenses and think they are both great.
In each of your points you ignore the significant impact of new technology. You are presenting the basic argument for why big, heavy, fast is better which is the way photographers have always thought and the assumptions they have made. But you completely ignore the effect of the new technology that Nikon has developed, which is the VRIII. New technology can make old assumptions void.
To use an analogy, it is like you are computer professionals and you are saying "If you were a professional computer person you would understand that having a big heavy hard drive in a big heavy laptop is necessary for all the data you have to carry around." While ignoring the fact that technology has advanced and you can have a one terabyte hard drive in a laptop that weights a couple pounds. Similarly, there are photographers who would have argued that "you need a $50,000 Haselblad medium format for professional studio work because you need the high pixels." But that argument has largely been invalided by the D800.
Your argument is contradicted by the data that I have. I would argue, based on the data, that Nikon has made significant technological breakthroughs and you are ignoring those. If you look at the images that I presented, in incredibly poor light, the image of the 2.8 is no better than the image of the f4.0 and that is because of the impact of the new technology.
Show me the data, the facts, not the theory which may be outdated by new technology, that demonstrates that big and heavy in fact produces a better image than that produced by the new technology.
Again, while I am presenting this as an "argument" I am not really arguing the case. I am presenting it as a possibility supported by the data but I am certainly open to contrary data.