Being able to approach with every single move isn't fundamentally sound, nor is it a great idea for the game design, balance, or excitement. Where is all the other types of moves? You must have things that are exciting and dynamic for everyone. You must have approaching moves, combo starters, defensive moves, chaining moves, risk reward moves, combo enders, multi-hits, pokes, power moves, exciting moves, all types of things. You must balance speed, power, grounded, aerial, close range, far range, risk, and reward types of characters. You still got ground moves, ATG (air to ground. Essentually what i call short-hopped aerials) moves, and true aerial moves to consider too. All moves must have a purpose, the different they are, the better, as long as it all comes together for one cohesive purpose. Because what purpose is there to make a diverse set of tools if none of them truly have a purpose?
Not all moves are going to be useful at every second. Everything shouldn't be useful for ATG move. You get your omni-use moves, then you get your situational moves. Things become a problem when your ATG moves bypass any thing a grounded opponent can do AND be safe on block. Especially if it has no downside.
So basically. This current debate is about making all aerials viable for short hopping by reducing landing lag across the board, thus making them nearly completely safe (or safer then ground attacks on average). In the process, making aerials again the one true superior approach option on a game that is trying to make ground and aerial approaches equal? Why should ground attacks be the only approach that's bound in rules and limitations? Is this a stealth combo debate?
...Is this debate actually about Smash 4? or is it about high landing lag vs low landing lag and not about how smash 4 has a wide range of landing lag + auto cancelled moves?