I've consistently maintained that the materialistic argument has little power to motivate the public. The huge Achilles Heel in that approach is exemplified by your list: Not one item requires manufacture in space, and only the handful involving unmanned satellites requires operations in space, and then only in near-Earth space.

That small point is key: It means that almost every one of those innovations could have been thought of and developed on Earth without involving the space program. Further, spinoffs don't argue for exploration--NEO is sufficient, depriving us of a motivation to explore farther.

Spinoffs are spinoffs, they're not the main event, and they're too easily separated from space exploration. I think the approach might even be actively counterproductive because it waves a red flag in front of clever people challenging them to come up with alternative, and always cheaper, ways of providing those benefits.