It's simple, really.
People want to get rid of auto-retraction in the premise that;
(1) An arbitrary system that implements a "chance to jam" or "chance to break" will be used
(2) This "chance" also means that there is a "chance" to retain the benefits of the flaps over the threshold without it jamming or breaking
(3) Therefore, people will take that "chance"
Basically, those who support the removal of auto-retraction view the auto-retraction system as being denied a "chance" (to willingly risk physical harm to their own planes) to shoot down an enemy plane. However, in truth, the loss of control (in terms of airspeed) of their own planes that causes the flaps to retract, is basically the same thing as turning too tight to step over the threshold and stalling out. Evidently, nobody asks to be given a chance to "not stall out" when they've already stalled out. What the "get rid of auto-retraction" folk want, is to get a chance for the flap benefits to remain over speeds at which it should not be - because, they expect the "chance" system to be used.
Hitech has made it clear that the only possible way of implementation when auto-retraction is gone, is to have the flaps damaged the moment they step over the speed threshold. You can bet your bellybutton that the "get rid of auto-retraction" folk will not be using the manual flap control system if it is implemented in this manner - at least, not in the sense they'd have expected it to be, since in this case manual flap management literally offers no extra benefit.
...and that's where the heart of this 'auto-retraction' debate lies. It's not really about auto/manual management, but rather about that "extra benefit".