So wait. Your argument is that you'd rather break a branch over your knee, because if you hack at it with a knife you might injure yourself? I would take my chances chopping than risking injuring my leg on a branch that I misjudged I could break. Not to mention some branches are still attached to the tree, and cannot be broken over the knee simply because of their position. I digress...

Your point seems to be heavily based on your philosophy of what should and should not be done with knives. As long as you're doing what you "should" be doing with knives, a folder works just fine. But not everybody agrees with what's acceptable knife use.

Some people think you shouldn't dig, hammer, hack, or pry with a knife. For them, a folder works just fine. Not everybody agrees with that though, and for those who think using a knife like that is acceptable, a fixed blade is generally superior.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that just because someone has a fixed blade that they're immediately going to start abusing their knife. For some, it's a last resort thing, but the fact that it's an OPTION is important to them. Along those same lines, don't assume because someone carries a folder and believes using a knife this way isn't an acceptable practice that they'll never do it. They may have to one day, and their folder may or may not break.

Everything else about survival is "keep it simple" so why do you submit that this is not the case with knives? Generally people want the most ruggid/robust equipment they can practically have, so that they can depend on it if it's all that's standing between life and death. Generally compactness (a folding knife's main asset) comes second to that with the exception of places where something must be small to ensure you carry it, like PSK's. Even then, people strive to find the most dependable items that are still small enough to fit in the kit. I don't understand why you don't think that's the case here.

I can get into the old arguments that, depending on the model, fixed blade knives have no moving parts to maintain and fail, they have no moving parts to get clogged up, interfering with operation, they have no chance failing at the weak spots and folding on your fingers, no matter how remote that chance is (while we're talking about "chances for injury"), and those would all be accurate statements, but it doesn't really solve anything. It again comes down to preference.

That being said, I EDC several folders. I won't feel under equipped with a folder if I find myself in the wilderness and that's all I have, but if I have the choice, I want the strongest, most dependable fixed blade knife I can find.

You're ranting about folders as if they have something to prove. You compare them to fixed blades because they seem to be the benchmark. Well, that's because they are. They don't have to prove themselves, they've been doing that for thousands of years. Instead, you should ask yourself whether the ability to serve in the improvised and less ideal uses of knives is important to you. That's what it really boils down to. If it's not, then use your folder and be happy. It doesn't matter what other people think; to each their own. If it is, then the argument should be

"a fixed blade can do everything a folder can, and it can also do more if needed" not "a folder can do everything a fixed blade can" because that's incorrect unless you add the disclaimer "as long as you're doing what you should be doing with knives", the definition of which, as mentioned, varies from person to person.