Everyone has prejudices. I try to leave mine as clear as I can. But in Kyrgio's case, I am trying to be objective, while most -- sorry for putting it bluntly -- see what they want to see. His stats are the ones of a big server. This is as objective as it gets. Of course he is not solely a big server -- no one is -- and he is too athletic, too fast, to be one. The other thing he is -- and I pick the word just to annoy you

-- is a
pusher. He will rally for hours if he has too.
Maybe it is the other way around and you're showing prejudice against the three players you mentioned. All of them are able to do some shots better than Kyrgios.
For example,in Cincinati Isner (yes, Isner) dealt with the low slices from Dimitrov much better than Kyrgios did. He returned them sometimes slicing it back, sometimes with side spin, sometimes pulling out some top spin. If you saw the match you will remember that. This is simply skill and Isner showed more than Kyrgios. Yes, it is completely against the current and the hype to say something like that, but, hell, I saw the matches, saw it happening, what can I say? I don't even like the guy -- he is the "boring" option I agree -- but he showed much much more skill in this particular and important part of the game.
As for the other two: Raonic volleys better than him and surely returns serve better. Querrey has a much more complete game than his -- from the four guys being mentioned, he is by far the last one I would label as a "big server". Back to my original point: if you look closer, almost no one is "just a big server". It all depends if you want or not to cut the guy some slack. It seems that everyone are willing to do that in Kyrgio's case.
I agree with you (and I have stated it before in other posts) that his athleticism is much above average (actually, that's part of my point as why he has waaay less "talent" than people credit him). The guy is bigger and stronger than average, serves much better than average, is fast (in fact, faster than average)... and (and this is the important part) is NOT a head case. In fact, he is very smart on court, and does not implode in tight matches (he may give up on the ones he knows his toast). If the guy had STILL talent/skill above average, he would be #1 in the world already. He is still far from top 10...
About Kyrgios "live arm".... sorry, don't buy that either. He is big and strong. Slow, floating balls he can punish very hard, but he simply won't fire an amazing forehand on a decent rally ball. Gonzales had a live arm. Blake had a live arm. Kyrgios might have one one day (his ground strokes are getting better, I acknowledged that on the Cincy final "chat"), but he will need a lot of practice to get to that level. Right now he only fires a winner when he has an obvious opportunity -- which in fact is a testament to the fact that he is a very smart player. Coupled with the unorthodox play style and -- specially -- shot selection, it makes for a good replacement of "talent", or at least "skill", because this is a talent in itself -- again, one that people generally don't give him credit for.
By this post it would seem I really don't like the guy, which is not true (it was, maybe two years ago).I just believe his (current) virtues are not the ones people say he has. Just to illustrate that -- notwithstanding that past spat with Wawrinka, in this recent final with Dimitrov he showed a lot of sportsmanship in two occasions where he really did not have to. Again, I am starting to like the guy, I only disagree with most on what are his real assets.
But all this rant has made think that in fact we almost never assess a player objectively. We will see the virtues in the guys we like and ignore almost identical skills in guys we dislike. Thus the never ending discussions on the same old topics...