I missed the debate but I'm with Brandon on the Punk thing. Maybe to a lesser extent. I don't think he was shafted by WWE necessarily (booking wise) but mishandled? Absolutely.
Let's not ignore the fact that he was dicked around before his record breaking reign which he had to scrape and claw his way into getting to begin with despite the fact he was always clearly one of the most well rounded superstars, if not the most well rounded, who could illicit a reaction as a face (see ECW, first Raw run, Voice of the Voiceless) or heel (see SES, New Nexus, final heel turn). You're delusional if you don't think he was constantly one of the most over people on the roster. Yet, he routinely had his gimmicks micromanaged or stifled.
They had him punted, leading to him vacating the World Heavyweight Championship despite not being injured. Taker came back and took the title off him in his third reign, allegedly because Taker had a problem with the way Punk presented himself, even though Punk's feud with Hardy was one of the best things that happened in WWE that year. They split up SES prematurely, once again despite Punk being arguably the most despised man on the roster. Then when he got the title, they nearly botched the thing by involving Kevin Nash and Alberto Del Rio in the thing even though no one was interested in either of those men. Yes he had a historic reign and yes he was treated as a big deal, but he didn't main event either WrestleMania or even the SummerSlam that took place in the middle of his reign.
His reign ended to The Rock who didn't even need the belt to continue his feud with Cena, and he went on to lose to Taker then Lesnar (stealing the show in both of those matches, I might add), and then they expected him to face Triple H at WrestleMania XXX, which I think it's fair to speculate would have been another self-gratifying Triple H Mania performance that Punk almost certainly wouldn't have won without some kind of shenanigans. He was move over than arguably anyone since Rock and Austin at the peak of his run and yet he was always in the shadow of someone else and kept losing to part-timers. I can't see how anyone could deny that they would have been pissed about that. I get not putting him and Jericho on last at 28. Cena and Rock was a big time blockbuster match, and for this to be the first meeting, it was obviously main event worthy. At 29, he and Taker could have went on last. We had seen Cena and Rock already at this point. Punk was still doing amazing work and The Streak was still vaunted. Plus, if Triple H vs. Chris Jericho can main event over Hogan vs. Rock, I think you can justify putting Punk and Taker on last. Especially if you're going to have Punk beat the streak... which he should have. Or even better, just make it a triple threat main event - Rock vs. Cena vs. Punk. That's what Punk wanted, but he didn't get it. Instead he just carried Taker to the match of the night and still went out on his back. Then they follow that up by having him lose to Lesnar at SummerSlam 2013. Considering he was no longer champ and Brock was verifiably hot at this point in time, this doesn't seem too bad, but after losing your belt to Rock, failing to main event Mania again, losing to Taker, dropping back down to a secondary level main event player, and then having to lose to Lesnar, it becomes more understandable. Despite, again, turning in a classic with Brock, Punk's next feuds would be against Curtis Axel, Ryback and Kane before his departure.
So you look at a guy who truly set the wrestling world on fire, drew in a lot of fans who hadn't been fans for years, and should have become an example for how you can grab the brass ring despite not being a "WWE guy" before Daniel Bryan had his own meteoric rise, and think about all the times he was stifled, overlooked or otherwise screwed over, I don't think there could be any dispute that he deserved better.
