Bitcoin Cash seems to be doing just fine with on-chain scaling. There are concerns about centralization on miners with it, but in my understanding the incentives planned in the original Bitcoin paper account for that.
Bitcoin Cash can’t even scrape together enough transactions to form 100kb blocks. It’s rather disengenuous to say it’s scaling better when it has a fraction of the users. Furthermore, larger block size is directly related to centralization. The bcash crowd hopes people forget decentralization is important.
It's a common misconception that block size is somehow related to decentralization. In fact you don't need a whole blockchain to verify transactions securely, you only need a few last blocks at max. Also full nodes add nothing to the network, they have no vote, only miners and actual users do.
There were some episodes in the latest months of very intense traffic (either an “attack” or someone stress testing) and Bitcoin Cash has endured it just fine.
Let’s see how it works out when adoption grows. If it doesn’t scale, then the timing for off-chain scaling will be more appropriate.
Spam? You mean "spam" generated by Steam and Stripe since they stopped accepting Bitcoin? People have stopped using Bitcoin because the fees were too high. That's not "spam".
Bitcoin may have made a PR mistake by not allowing for interim scaling solutions like BCH did with doubling the block size, but block size increases are a dead end. They cannot possibly scale the network enough if demand really takes off. I think lightening is a very interesting solution. You may disagree, but you can’t just plan to increase the block size forever.
-> Dogecoin clear winner, Bitcoin Cash about the same as Litecoin (but remark that Litecoin handles double the amount of transactions)
So to be honest, I think Bitcoin Cash is just trying to ride the "Bitcoin" name, because for applicability, it doesn't seem to have any advantage over its direct competitors.