On one hand, there are the high-volume transactions involving 6000 individual transactions that cumulatively result in approximately 12000 new outputs. These are contrasted with large script transactions that are limited in their output creation, typically yielding only one or two new outputs.

The underlying argument is centered on the notion of cost equity and resource consumption. It's posited that transactions with a larger number of outputs should inherently incur higher fees due to their more substantial impact on the network. This includes factors such as the increased demand for storage space, greater computational resources required for processing, and the overall effect on network latency and throughput.

Concurrently, there is an expressed concern regarding the treatment of simpler transactions. The appeal here is for a balanced approach that does not disproportionately disadvantage these transactions simply because they are less complex or voluminous. The reference to BitVM seems to suggest a desire for a system that can accommodate both simple and complex transactions without bias, ensuring that transactions of a basic nature are not "thrown under the bus" – unfairly penalized or de-prioritized in favor of more elaborate scripts.

Thus, the dialogue points toward a nuanced understanding of the blockchain fee structure. It emphasizes the importance of creating a fair and scalable fee model that reflects the actual resource usage and network contribution of different types of transactions, without compromising the viability of simple, everyday transactions that are fundamental to the usability of the network.