His arguments might be shitty, but at least he has arguments. Other than starting this thread, you have contributed nothing to it except acting like a baby who calls people names and dismissing everything simply because you don't like it.
The narcissistic way you seem to think that your opinion is right and everyone else's is wrong shows that you have an awful lot to turn and you have a very long way to go to reach a level of maturity most people attained around puberty.
I'll leave the psychoanalysis to you from now on, I'm only a Psych minor, out of my expertise.
But look, dude. I'll say it like this, most threads about a current WWE event go on for a few days, maybe a week, two if it develops over time or the memes last on it, but it has been nearly three weeks of this guy trying to defend his few points again and again and everyone just saying they disagree, then he insults us, and he insults wrestling fans he deems "smarky," then it comes back and I have ran out of popcorn! It's the point where this thread an argument beating the same points over and over, again and again, people attacking people verbally, and any quality that could have come from discussing whether or not you think Rollins is the use of straw man arguments, appeals to ignorance, hasty generalizations, and red herrings. It hurts looking at it!
Tip: If you want to have a thread not turn into childish squabbling, or lower the risk here is how you do it!
First: Don't insult the people in the thread or a "subset of fans" who are likely to be on the site reading your post. That alone adds fuel to the fire.
Second: Make the first post... inviting. Sure, you can state an opinion, but don't jump right into it or make it seem like fact when it is not. Also, invite people to offer their opinions and why.
Perhaps say something like.
Example:
"As of this week on Raw, it appears to be set with Seth Rollins and Brock Lesnar for the Universal Title at Wrestlemania after Seth won the Royal Rumble and it may be likely that he will be the one that vanquishes Lesnar for the title and be "The Guy." But is he the right choice? I don't really buy him as the guy to beat Lesnar or really think he has the ability to be the guy long term. I don't find he has enough charisma to carry the company as a draw as say, John Cena, or The Rock, and I don't enjoy his promos. Sure, people enjoy him in the ring, but I think there is more to being the guy in the main event than just good matches. It is why I didn't like Daniel Bryan in his big push a few years ago, I just need someone larger than life.
That's just one person's thoughts, but do you guys think they're making the right choice with him? Is he really the guy the company should go all in on as their big star? Is there someone else you think that may be better, old or new? Personally, I'd love Drew McIntyre to be the guy to beat him, I think he has it all. He has a size, the look, an intensity about him, and I think he's the complete package, just turn him face and keep him as a badass and they're set!"
See? Isn't that post far more put together, clearly outlines the thread, and shows everyone you can take debate and different ideas!
Third: If people disagree, sure, you can debate, feed into the conversation. Keep it at the topic at hand, rightfully distinguish what is truly a fact, and someone's opinion. Don't misrepresent their arguments, and focus on the argument itself, not them as a person. But, if you see it is getting nowhere, rather than trying to
win, by changing their mind when it seems to be set and try to say that you hold the "definitive truth," recognize that it is going nowhere and walk away respectfully and end the debate.
This concludes another episode of Beavie ramming their head into a wall when they probably shouldn't! Tune in next time when I make a terrible mistake to return to the world of e-feds for the 100th time! This episode has been sponsored by someone who I think is one of WWE's best options at the moment to be "The Guy," Seth Rollins
