I think I agree with you. Chess is only a thing because people have played chess for a long time. Different time limits are a different kind of game -- neither better nor worse, but different from the things that made tournament-style chess popular.
Perhaps with computers it's time to retire the existing notion of chess tournaments. But people still seem interested, much as we still watch Usain Bolt despite him being outclassed by cars and even bicycles.
A machine can throw a fastball at speeds well above what humans can do. That doesn't mean we retire pitchers completely and end the game of baseball. A car can cover 100m in a fraction of the time humans can, doesn't mean we end track and field.
Chess is a game between humans and that's what makes it exciting.
And with computers we have a whole additional layer added where we can see what an essentially perfect game would look like and compare to that (although computers can still occasionally be surprised by human moves).
You clearly don't follow chess, given your question. So I have to ask: why are you so quick to take a stance on something you don't follow or understand?
I love both playing and watching rapid chess, but I think it's better for the world championship to be decided using classical time limits. That way, we get more interesting games, rather than the indignity of top players blundering while under time pressure.