For the fun of it, I take the other side and suggest that the velocity argument is a minor one.
IMHO, the Angle of Attack argument may only be relevant to a tail-dragger, since it requires more yaw correction during the initial take-off roll, before the tail is lifted off of the ground.
Climb is instigated by increasing the power from the engine. Initially, this will result in an increased airspeed (and lower AoA). Then the increased airspeed will increase the wing's lift. Eventually, the craft will settle at a slightly faster airspeed and the desired greater rate of climb. The resulting change in the AoA is probably very small.
It appears that primary cause of yaw, due to a change in the power setting, is the result of the upper portion of the prop-wash spiral striking the vertical stabilizer. A strong argument supporting this position is the fact that the vertical stabilizer is not located in the stream-tubes of airplanes with twin engines. Numerous people have commented that on a twin-rotor craft it does not matter if the engine+propellers rotate in the same direction or are counter-rotating.
Other factors are the P-factor and the torque of the engine. Opposing these three is a comment that the aerodynamic forces on a blade want to twist the blade so as to reduce its a AoA (similar to delta3).
From a practical point of view, I found the pedals to be little more than foot-rests, except for; cross-wind landings, playing with stalls, esthetically looking aerobatics and tail-rotor take-offs.
This might be, or perhaps has been, a interesting discussion for the gyrocopter community. This is because the gyro fuselage is very loosely coupled to the lift device (2-blade teetering rotor) and the tail- feathers have very short moment arms.
Just an opinion.
Dave