Your argument is, "If it's not in use, why disable it?" Mine is, "If it's not in use, why leave it enabled?"
Because it isn't in used, and therefore, acts as if it is disabled. The only difference is...should that service ever be needed down the road, you won't have any issues if you simply leave it alone. If you disable it, and it is needed, you have an issue. Add in the fact there's nothing to be gained (proven for years) by disabling it...it becomes common sense.
I hope you see that this debate can't be resolved.
It's been resolved....a few years ago. Ever hear the term QuackViper? If so, google it. That's what lead to the "debate" and then the resolution that disabling unneeded services is pointless.
Just as you probably know a lot more about computers than I give you credit for, I know more than you give me credit for.
If this is true, then I'd expect your advice to prove it. I could post all kinds of stats about my experience, length of time working professionally in the computer field, who I worked for the past, etc, but all of that doesn't matter on a forum board. All that does matter is common sense and accuracy with advice. Fact is, disabling unneeded services is/was old news, and has been refuted several years ago. All you are doing is increasing your chance of an unstable system. It is common sense once you do the appropriate reading. If you want me to believe you read about SuperFetch, don't tell us that you disable it...because that proves the contrary. If you want me/us to respect your computer knowledge, don't spout the wonders of disabling services and expect to be taken seriously. Give advice that is factual, logical, and "tried and true".
Do I sound cranky? Yeah, probably, but I didn't have my coffee yet today. I'm also growing extremely weary of seeing this "debate" brought back up time and time again, only to yield the same results. Those results are, "leave it alone". It can't be said enough.