Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,130 (click to see context) from:
If it has a fandom, it likely has had a BrokenBase at one point or another.
----
[[foldercontrol]]
[[folder:Channels and Distributors]]
* Creator/AdultSwim: Anime vs Comedy. And within the comedy fanbase, Animated vs. [[NetworkDecay Live-Action]]... as well as Original Programming vs. Syndicated/Imported.
* While many shows on Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} are prone to this, the network ''itself'' has been prone to this for ''years''. 1) When it started to [[SeasonalRot "decline"]], which is usually chosen as 1986, 1990, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2009. 2) When it started to get [[GrowingTheBeard "good"]], which many people say is in 1985 when Fred Seibert and Alan Goodman saved the network, 1991 when the Nicktoons debuted, 1999 when ''WesternAnimation/SpongeBobSquarePants'' debuted, or many different years. 3) When it started to get [[WinBACKTheCrowd "better"]], which is often divided by many people with real no specific time. Lastly, 4) if the network is still "good", or keeps getting "worse and worse".
* Creator/CartoonNetwork is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it [[GrowingTheBeard really hit its stride]] with the Powerhouse era and [[SeasonalRot went to hell]] in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the Advertising/{{CN City}} era and started to decline in 2007 with the Fall era, or got bad in 2009 with the debut of Creator/CNReal. Others will say it hit its stride with the Powerhouse era, declined, but not by a considerable margin, in the CN City era, fully cemented into its DorkAge with the Fall era and reached its nadir in 2009 with the debut of CN Real. Another huge debate is if it's still sucking to this day, or it got [[WinBACKTheCrowd a whole lot better]] in 2010, and continues to get better.
* Creator/DisneyChannel also gets this, though not to the extent of Nickelodeon. Either it was great from 1983 to 1997 but got worse from 1997 to 2002, and got really bad in 2002, was at it's best from 1997 to 2006 and got bad since, or got bad in 2006, and may still not be the best but has gotten a little better since.
* Creator/DisneyChannel and Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} have the cartoons vs Live Action debate. People tend to side with the cartoons for both channels, but pretty much everyone agrees that Creator/CartoonNetwork [[NetworkDecay abandoning animation]] was a bad idea.
* The digital video game store Website/GogCom branching out into selling movies proved to be controversial among its userbase, since plenty of people are afraid that it will take away the focus from games. The fact that they don't sell any big-name movies (just indie films and documentaries) caused people to feel underwhelmed and disappointed. (And the inclusion of ''Film/BroniesTheExtremelyUnexpectedAdultFansOfMyLittlePony'' in the initial lineup annoyed people who are sick of seeing the fandom leave its mark on everything.)
[[/folder]]
[[folder:General Fiction]]
* Fans of all things zombie have a broken base over whether or not Romero-style zombies can successfully over take the [[RealLife real world]]. One group of fans says yes, and it would happen fast. Another group says it can happen but nowhere near as fast as it's depicted in movies/literature, etc... Basically it'll be like a slow burn. The last group says a zombie plague won't end the world because everyone and they momma knows what a zombie is and how to dispose of it. And that the government won't just collapse within a matter of months like it's usually depicted. At the most the zombie plague would just be a recurring health problem like Cancer and Aids.
** A sub-group of the latter group agrees with this but thinks the casualties would be more devastating then the last group thinks.
** Website/{{Cracked}} discussed why the ZombieApocalypse [[http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html will fail]] and how it [[http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html could succeed]]
** There is another Zombie-related issue breaking up the fans as well, namely on the usefulness of the .22 caliber round against a zombie. Ever since Max Brooks came out with ''Literature/TheZombieSurvivalGuide'', there has been an ongoing argument on the rounds effectiveness of destroying the brain of a zombie. Proponents argue it would bounce around inside of the skull and it's more common than dirt. Detractors say there is no guarantee that it will even penetrate the skull or do that brain-destroying damage (for what it's worth, reality and the laws of physics can vouch that .22 rounds don't repeatedly pinball around inside the skulls of the living). Some have gone so far to say that the .22 is the ''only'' bullet that would be effective at stopping a zombie and all other rounds are less useful or just plain useless.
* The [[ScienceMarchesOn constantly changing image of]] dinosaurs often sparks debates. Old-school dinosaur geeks that grew up in the ''Franchise/JurassicPark''-era display a fierce harshness towards the scientifically now-accepted fact that, for example, raptors and would have been feathered or at least fuzzy, and criticize works that depict dinosaurs as realistic animals instead of reptilian movie-monsters. Meanwhile hard-core paleontology fans, knowing that the fossil evidence clearly supports their side, simply dismiss these people (often rudely). Even among them, though, there is a serious break when it comes to how close works about dinosaurs (and other prehistoric creatures) should stay to the known facts. Is it okay for non-scientific movies to still depict [[RaptorAttack raptors with scales]], or unacceptable? Should artists only draw what we can reliably infer from the fossils, or is wild speculation okay as long as it doesn't contradict the evidence? Arguments frequently occur because many paleontologists and general paleo-nerds treat their obsession as very SeriousBusiness, and don't want mass-media misrepresenting their work.
** Referenced in-universe in the book version of ''Literature/JurassicPark''. When they cloned the dinosaurs, they found that they moved far more quickly than the plodding, lumbering animals in the popular imagination and worried that people [[RealityIsUnrealistic would not accept them]]. There was some talk of creating genetically modified "slow" dinosaurs (which would also, incidentally, have been easier to control) before Hammond [[ExecutiveMeddling nixed]] it.
* Horror fans seems to be split over the quality of audacious foreign horror films when compared to American horror films. They're either refreshing and daring, or gory pretentious crap.
** Also among horror fans there's a sub-debate on what should be considered a Horror film as oppose to a Thriller and vice versa. Some feel that Thrillers are neutered horror films made for people who can't hack "Real" horror.
** Another divide is over the style and approach of making horror Films/Books, etc... Some prefer the subtlety of NothingIsScarier, MaybeMagicMaybeMundane, and DoingInTheWizard approach (Eeemplified by the people who thought ''Film/TheDescent'' was good "Until the crawlers showed up"), Some preferring the ThroughTheEyesOfMadness approach, some prefer the {{Gorn}} approach. Or perhaps some prefer the AttackOfTheKillerWhatever and or AttackOfThe50FootWhatever. Some even take the diplomatic approach and prefer all of the above.
** And within the film medium there's the whole debate over when is dark, bleak, and depressing, too dark, bleak and depressing? And the use of the DownerEnding... Some are of the opinion that people are completely missing the point and that horror is SUPPOSED to be dark, bleak, and depressing. Others take the view that using such a limiting definition and emotional palate only serves to make everything ultimately seem exactly the same. NecessaryWeasel, and AnthropicPrinciple plays a HUGE part in these debates.
** Speaking of dark tones, A common problem in horror movies tends to be the fact some fans see the genre as nothing but DarknessInducedAudienceApathy. For example: The cast of potential victims is presented as a bunch of obnoxious jerks, and/or complete idiots, to the point where it's hard to feel bad for them when they finally start dying. Although for many [[CatharsisFactor that's part of the appeal]]. On the other hand, if the horror movie has a sympathetic family as a victim it could have another negative effect ranging from ShootTheDog to MoralEventHorizon (as far as the writers, creators etc crossing it...unfairly or not) to CrossesTheLineTwice. Which could also turn off certain groups of horror fans as well, which possibly explain the constant obnoxious jerk characters as a substitute, and villains constantly being prone to being DracoInLeatherPants. Horror films (especially mainstream American horror films) likes to be broadly appealing. You can't have a popular horror film where expies of ''Series/TheWaltons'' and [[Series/TheCosbyShow The Cosbys]] are brutally murdered by the Psycho/Demon/Werewolf/Vampire/Alien. Of course, while it might be too horrifying to subject, say, a charming, wholesome, likeable family to the events of a horror film, making potential victims unlikable and rooting for the monster are both missing the point of horror. Why should you be scared of something you're actually hoping to happen? This is sort of a inherent divisiveness within the genre. Horror fans want to be scared, but doesn't want it to come by way of hurting innocent likeable characters. Which is terribly ironic considering certain horror fans complain about the genre lacking likeable characters.
*** The disagreements over bleak and dark tone seems to be mostly a matter of personal taste than anything.
*** Same with having actual ghosts/demons/aliens etc..in the film. Some people think that's what makes a real horror film while others think it's a cheap gimmick.
** And whether or not to use humor and comedy. Does it add to the movie, and mood or destroys it?
** For the Literature medium there are those who prefer the short and simple stories to the 900 page Doorstops. Mostly because they think Horror stories are much more effective as short stories, as bigger books tends to drag.
** There's also a debate over perceived attitudes towards the genre. For instance on message boards there will be a fan who'll be like "Yaaay they're making Terror On Cliched Street part 20!", and another disgruntled one who'll be like "*ugh* Hollywood has run out of ideas". The latter thinking the former is everything that is wrong with horror today. While the former think that the latter group are a bunch of pretentious Jerkasses who think foreign horror is the best thing since indoor plumbing, and is taking the genre too seriously. While the latter fires back by saying they're the ones that are giving horror fans a "bad name" (and by extension the whole genre).
** People argue that if it doesn't have any supernatural/fantasy/sci-fi elements it's not a real horror film. Some think adding too much sci-fi and technobable ruins the genre, likely a microcosm of the Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane approach where they use science or sci-fi to explain away the paranormal/supernatural (which some see as a cop out). Same thing can be said for adding in action
*** In addition to the above is it a bad idea to try and explain everything in a horror story/plot. Or is it best to leave it mysterious and vague?, Or is that a WriterCopOut?
** Anytime a MaybeMagicMaybeMundane horror movie turns out to be RealAfterAll. Case in point The Last Exorcism.
** There's also accusations of people RunningTheAsylum for the worse, By keeping all of the arguably negative stuff around because they think it's the norm for the genre. Creating a horror version of Sci Fi Ghetto.
** Found Footage horror is very polarizing among horror fans. Regardless of how well made they might be.
** It doesn't help that the horror genre is subjective (and polarizing) to begin with.
* Speaking of horror genre, there seems to be a divide on how to make zombie films/books/shows, and what makes a good zombie story as oppose to a generic zombie story. Should they be humorous zombie killing action pieces? Or dramatic, thought provoking, Socio-Political commentary and or deep character studies?
** As mentioned in the 28 Days Later example, what does or does not constitute a proper cinema Zombie is up for big debate. Can Zombies be fast or does that fly in the face of what a Zombie should be? Are they mindless walking corpses with no goal other than to eat the living, or should they have a deeper level that allows them to form basic plans and organize? Are they caused by magic? toxic waste? a virus? Numerous fans will insist that changing a single element destroys the Zombie title.
* Combat robots, as seen in stuff like ''Series/BattleBots'' and ''Series/RobotWars'', have a split between fans of robots designed around damage and destruction and fans of robots designed around technique and manipulation. The former favor [[SpectacularSpinning full-body spinners, flywheel users, spinning drums]], and [[CarryABigStick hammer-bots]] whereas the latter prefer [[GrievousHarmWithABody lifters, trappers]], [[BareFistedMonk push-bots, and wedges]], with [[LauncherMove launchers]] somewhere in between (but generally well-liked by both parties, as these bots require finesse ''and'' create spectacle when they work as intended). The former group of fans want to see robots getting torn apart and ripped to shreds, and the latter group of fans like seeing skilled piloting used to control the tide of battle. Both groups tend to see the other as rather boring to watch, and hence there is little peace between them. It doesn't help matters that the winners of these competitions tend to form cycles between damage-based robots and technique-based robots.
* A FanworkBan can sometimes start one of these, between fans who support the author's decision and fans who lambast the author and/or defy the ban.
* Among fans of {{crossdress|er}}ing male characters (as well as real-life male crossdressers), there's a bit of debate over whether it's acceptable to call them "traps", stemming from an ages old meme about reacting to such a person with the {{memetic|Mutation}} [[Film/ReturnOfTheJedi "It's a trap!"]] line. Proponents think it's fine and people who complain are overreacting based on an irrelevant issue, opponents feel that it carries negative implications; specifically, the idea that a crossdressing man is deceitful, to say ''nothing'' about the term also being used to refer to UsefulNotes/{{trans|gender}}women which some feel that calling crossdressers "traps" already skirts too close to. Nearly ''any'' discussion of this topic between people with differing opinions will quickly degrade into mudslinging.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Hardware and Programming]]
* User-friendly Linux distributions such as Ubuntu vs. "power" distros such as Gentoo or Slackware.
** Ubuntu itself causes a bit of a broken base for the Debian crowd: should Debian be credited more or would that tarnish Debian's reputation as rock solid? And then there's Canonical's recent UI antics, like rearranging buttons on the title bar or nuking the [[strike:system tray]] [[InsistentTerminology notification area]](the fact that they give the latter drifting from Microsoft's original vision as one of their reasons doesn't help). And then there's the the debate over whether GNU's insistence on "GNU/Linux" is mere egotism or justified.
* The Great Editor War, a long and epic battle between the users of Emacs and Vi. The battle between these two programming editors has gone on longer than the Mac vs. PC debate. The rivalry has long been joked about: even the normally bitter Richard Stallman has poked fun at the debate, declaring himself head of the "Church of Emacs" declaring war on the "Cult of Vi."
* Android has this in many different ways:
** Rooted[[note]]Granting superuser/admin privileges to the user, a concept familiar to *nix users[[/note]] or non-rooted? Proponents of rooting feel that it opens up many new options for tailoring one's Android experience, while opponents are concerned that rooted phones are more vulnerable to security exploits than non-rooted ones.
** Official Android versions or custom ones?
* iOS (including iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch):
** Like with rooting above, jailbreaking is a point of contention among users. Some enjoy the extended capabilities of a jailbroken phone, while others feel that it's a bricked phone or an exploited phone waiting to happen.
** iOS 7 and up vs. earlier versions. There are those who won't upgrade from iOS 6 or earlier, primarily because of the visual style of later versions, while others either enjoy the aesthetic or feel that it's too small of an issue to be concerned about.
** A huge one exists over rumors that the iPhone 7 won't have the 3.5-mm audio jack. Some users are angry enough about it that they intend to [[ScrewThisImOuttaHere bail out of Apple's ecosystem]], others think that detractors are overreacting and that the problem can be easily solved with a 3.5mm-to-Lightning adapter (which itself has the rebuttal that it prevents listening to audio and charging at the same time).
* Windows 8. Whereas certain previous versions of Windows got perfectly justified hate for performance and compatibility problems, 8 has none of those. However opinions on the radically updated UI are either "Greatest Windows Ever" or "The New Vista". No in between.
** Windows 10 is either "[[SurprisinglyImprovedSequel Windows 8 but with less suck]] and free[[note]]for the first year of 10's release[[/note]]" or [[UnwantedAssistance "that upgrade that Microsoft kept shoving down my throat so now I hate it so much"]].
* The ''goto'' statement in programming languages. Does using it automatically make you a lazy/stingy/paranoid person with no regards for clean code? Or are the ones who avoid it ''"quiche eaters"'' who are just wannabes who can never be a ''real programmer'' and are idiotically forfeiting their job security to other ''"quiche eaters"''?
* Style guides for programming can be a highly contentious issue for a number of reasons.
** How many spaces should each indentation take up? Most people generally argue for either two spaces or four, but other choices are not unheard of.
** Should indentation use tabs or spaces? The former allows everyone to use their preferred indentation size, therefore negating the above debate, but the latter guarantees that alignment stays consistent across all machines.
** For languages that use curly brackets, where do you place the brackets? This one gets particularly messy since many of the formally-codified styles have different standards for different types of blocks (e.g. functions versus loops).
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Technology and Weapons]]
* [[CoolVsAwesome Boeing vs Airbus]] is a huge one in the aerospace industry world. The two companies are notable for possibly the bitterest and nastiest commercial rivalry in the world of manufacturing. It is exacerbated by various factors, such as Airbus's "Reimbursable Launch Investment" from EU governments (loans that have to be paid back at generous rates of interest, plus royalties if the aircraft is a success) and the US government's effective subsidizing of Boeing with pork barrel military contracts (and in a few cases free money), which were the subject of the world's largest trade dispute ever during 2005-2012, which ultimately ended with a World Trade Organisation decision in Airbus's favor. The fallout is still settling, although there are signs that the US and Boeing have tried to get around the decision, and the EU is threatening to place trade sanctions of ''$19 billion'' on Boeing. Add lots of internet UsefulNotes/MisplacedNationalism (Americans want red-blooded American planes whose wives make them apple pie and who take their kids to baseball practice, not cappucino-drinking European commie planes with bad teeth and who spend their time looking at modern art galleries, [[NotSoDifferent and vice-versa]]) and the thing can get very nasty on enthusiast forums. It also reaches the pilots too - older pilots who were weaned on Boeing products before Airbus hacked out its market share in TheNineties prefer their old friends, but younger pilots prefer Airbuses because they are easier to fly and because of their standardized cockpit layouts a pilot can qualify on one and have done most of the work for all the others.
** Similar case happens with so called [[UsefulNotes/{{Capitalism}} NewSpace]] and [[UsefulNotes/{{NASA}} OldSpace]]. [=NewSpace=] believes with the advances of private spaceflight and privately funded science ventures NASA should be abolished, while [=OldSpace=] believes private ventures will fall into greed and unable to produce science results truthfully. With success by [=SpaceX=] and the increasingly unlikelihood of SLS and JWST being actually operational with '''billions''' of dollar already spend, [=NewSpace=] is gaining ground. However, since both are silence minorities against the American public, they are unable to change anything in Congress, which is gearing toward funneling pork barrels to Boeing, Lockhart Martin and ATK while trying to abolish NASA.
* Porsche cars. Every single time a new model line is introduced it divides the owners/fan base. This happened when the Cayenne SUV came out, before that it was old school air-cooled 911 fans incensed at the new water-cooled 911, universally the 911 fans are putting down anything not-911 and getting a similar treatment from non-911 fans, and way back in the sixties there was the now familiar cry of "It's not a real Porsche!" when Porsche made their first major model change, introducing the 911 to replace the 356 model.
** Car companies can fall victim to this. General Motors is a very good example, being essentially the automotive equivalent of Franchise/SonicTheHedgehog. Pontiac's dead? Good riddance, or is is ruined forever? Cadillac having front-wheel-drive cars? Acceptable or not?
* AK-47 vs. M-16 for assault rifle people. The youtube videos have huge numbers of comments, and that's just the beginning.
** To ~93% percent of the participants on both sides, the AK-74 is just an academic term, and the AK-100 series doesn't even exist. To the AK side, the M-16 never got upgraded, or cleaning kits, or any sort of improvement at all. To the M-16 side, the AK is so innacurate that the safest place to be when it is fired is directly in front of the muzzle, and they refuse to even touch Kalashnikovs, or even discuss the fact that certain members of the AK-100 family come in the same caliber as their beloved M-16's. Then the AK fanbase assumes that an M-16 will always jam, no matter what, and that the small caliber rounds can only kill you if you are shot 10 times, or if you bleed out on the ground for a couple minutes, and wooe betide you should you either take a third option or say that you like both. [[note]] Basically, each side looks at the other gun as it was when first issued in Vietnam, ignoring improvements during the conflict, let alone the many decades since. [[/note]] However, depending on the setting, your mileage may vary significantly.
** Even more vicious is the infighting between diferent members and factions of each camp. The M-16 people argue over mods and manufacturers. The AK people go on over the 74's 5.45X39 round vs. the old 7.62 and whether or not it was a good idea.
*** Nowadays this have eased somewhat, with AK's availability in almost any caliber imagined. People still argue which one is better, though.
*** Don't forget country of manufacture (particularly the cheaper ones like Romanians are very divisive), importer, chromed vs non-chromed, and stamped vs. milled.
* In handguns, there's the debates about revolvers versus pistols. The revolver camp goes on about the low caliber ammunition used by pistols and how unreliable they are. The pistol camp goes on about how revolvers are antiquated and that magnum catriges are just silly.
** Don't even get started on the M9 vs. M1911 debate, or for that matter, any sort of debate about which makes a better bullet: a small, fast cartidge that tumbles through flesh, or a big heavy slug that wrecks whatever it hits.
** Any brand of pistol vs. another brand of pistol. One common example (involving the two biggest selling types of firearms) is Glock "Safe Action" vs 1911-style "cocked and locked" carry.
* Swords are not immune to this. Probably the deepest divide is about the katana: [[KatanasAreJustBetter are they the greatest sword ever made, perfectly designed by master craftsmen and capable of outclassing any Western design]]? [[JokeItem Or are they completely worthless hunks of glorified pig iron, doomed to shatter like glass and get the wielder killed the moment they come into contact with a good European longsword, overrated by]] [[OccidentalOtaku weeaboos desperate to justify their love of all things Japanese]]? [[TakeAThirdOption Or are they the best possible response to the poor quality of Japanese iron ore?]]
* [[ThoseWackyNazis World War 2 German weapons and vehicles]]. [[StupidJetpackHitler Hyper-advanced designs that paved the way for all modern military weapons, could beat anything the Allies made three ways to sunday and would have let the Nazis win the war had they just been produced enough/Hitler not been so crazy]], or [[AwesomeYetImpractical overly-complex and ridiculously expensive designs that while using some innovative features were not at all reliable and have been blown out of proportion by history]]. Expect arguments to veer into the territory of ArtisticLicenseHistory and GodwinsLaw.
* In the earth sciences, there's a pretty stark divide between earth scientists in the private sector, who generally view the planet as a resource to be utilized, and earth scientists in academia who tend to view the planet as a wonder to be conserved.
* In 2013, Apple massively changed the interface of its iOS software, replacing the then-iconic pseudo-3D designs with a much flatter appearance. The public was largely divided on whether it was a refreshing modernization or an ugly, user-unfriendly gimmick, and though most people have forgotten about the disagreement by now, it doesn't seem like it will ever totally die down as long as Apple keeps the same basic design language.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Other Other]]
* Video game magazines aren't safe from this either. ''Magazine/NintendoPower'' got the most flack since many anti Nintendo fans would always claim that the magazine was "biased" towards its own first party games by giving them high scores. When ''Nintendo Power'' was outsourced to another publisher, the staff slightly changed. People claimed Nintendo Power was biased up until the very end, but would somehow agree with them if the magazine gave any game an 8 or less. Then, of course, you had people who thought the reviews were just fine and got into {{Flame War}}s against those who bashed the magazine.
* What should be considered Porn or "nude/erotic art"... [[TakeAThirdOption or both]]. If there's a line, where should the distinction be drawn? Keep in mind erotic art can be very pornographic as well. In fact the line is so blurred some think there isn't a difference anymore.
** There's actually a website that lets you be the judge regarding some of the pictures they show you.
* Black and white vs colour photography: one side points to the impact of monochrome, and questions why any photographer worth the name would want to use anything else; the other side points to the fact that we see in colour, and that the technical issues with colour fidelity and dynamic range were resolved years ago.
* Talking about certain contestants on ''Series/ThePriceIsRight'' that make bids that just says "I'm only making this bid to get attention", such as making a $2,000,000 bid, bids that are $420, or any bid whose last two numbers are 69. Fans of the show can't seem to decide whether or not the silly bids doesn't do anyone any harm or if it robs other people a spot on contestant's row because the idiot contestant wanted to get attention to themselves and not play the game seriously.
* Two such instances pop up in the tenth chapter of the crossover between ''Franchise/LyricalNanoha'' and ''Anime/SailorMoon'', ''Fanfic/WhiteDevilOfTheMoon'', and surprisingly, they are unrelated to [[spoiler:Nanoha and Fate getting together]]
** Was Nanoha justified in harshly calling the Queen out on how she raised Serenity? Additionally, was this in character for Nanoha, who is more responsible than Usagi or Serenity, or was this contrary to someone who would "befriend" her enemies?
** Vivio defeating Picoha (a character based off of Usagi's future daughter Chibi-Usa) and causing her and her alternate timeline to disappear was also a controversial action, especially since it was essentially killing her. WordOfGod has clarified, however, that Picoha was the aggressor, attacking without stating her intent, and Vivio tried to defeat her non-lethally, without knowing what would happen to her.
* Analytic vs. continental philosophy.
** Moral Philosophy/Ethics in general. Okay, the debate about what's morally right and wrong is going to be cause for a lot of arguments in near enough every academic and professional field, but in philosophy, it's divided even more significantly among followers of different schools of ethical thought. Is the best/most accurate theory a consequentialist one like utilitarianism, holding that the consequences of an action dictate whether it's right? A deontological one, holding that the intentions dictate how ethical an action is? Virtue Ethics based on ideals and personalities? Various other theories based on everything from social/political theories to attempts at scientific ones? And then there's the religious side of things and the various churches and groups making up the likes of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and what they each say are morally right and wrong...
* In tattoo circles, stick n' poke tattoos (tattoos done with a singular needle by people that aren't tattoo artists): are they unsanitary and the people that get them idiots, or are they an important part of tattoo culture and the people against them are snobs?
* In psychiatry, should patients be treated with drugs or counseling? This one is particularly nasty, and is at the heart of the controversy over the DSM-V.
** There is also some debate over whether therapy must be validated/evidence-based, like like cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy and family-based treatment, with some saying that only relying on things that have been proven to actually work is unrealistic for a real world, clinical setting, and that the view ignores the value of experience/anecdotes, and the other side insisting that mental health practitioners act like health professionals. It doesn't help that the group against evidence-based-psychology is mainly made up of therapists, who have lower accreditation requirements than psychologist and psychiatrists, and that the evidence-based camp also says that practitioners should make their success rates available so potential clients can judge what's worth paying for.
* Descriptivism vs. prescriptivism in spelling and grammar. Do language experts ''prescribe'' "correct" spelling and grammar, or merely ''describe'' spelling and grammar as it's actually used? The Descriptivists pretty much won that one, but that only leads to further splits. When does a grammatical construction or alternate spelling pass from the vernacular to the "standard"? How many people need to make a certain mistake before it stops being a mistake and starts being the new accepted usage? Should etymology figure into these decisions? What about clarity? These debates have been raging since the days of [[FandomRivalry Samuel Johnson and Daniel Webster]].
* In statistics, there are several fairly exotic types of probability that take a great amount of time to understand and practice, and have fairly unusual and strict assumptions that must be met, leading to debates as to whether they are of any value to practicing statisticians.
* Bev Francis triggered one for female UsefulNotes/{{bodybuilding}} as a contestant in Miss Olympia 1991. She weighed in at ''160'' pounds (She's 5-foot-5, fyi). Previously, no other female contestant had ever been that muscular. She came in at second place, having lost by a single point and was leading after two rounds, only to be overtaken in the concluding rounds. The debate of "How much muscle on a woman is too much?” has raged ever since.
* Cosplay:
** Making one's own costumes vs. commissioning or ordering them. Some feel that craftsmanship is a very vital element of cosplay, while others find that it's too much extra effort just to have a pretty costume and prefer to focus on the modeling aspect of it.
** [[CasualCompetitiveConflict Cosplaying simply for recreation vs cosplaying for competition or as a profession]].
** Whether one should match the body type of the character they're cosplaying. Those who say it should think it's aesthetically unpleasant at best and NauseaFuel at worst to see, for example, a chubby [[Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann Yoko Littner]] or a non-muscular [[Anime/KillLaKill Ira Gamagoori]]. Others point out that they should be able to cosplay whoever they please and that some people simply aren't able to match their characters' physique even if they do put their efforts into it, especially if height is the main issue (going to chubby to lean or vice versa can be done with a lot of time and dedication, but losing or gaining anything more than one inch as an adult with a fully-developed skeleton is straight up impossible). In fact, people of the former opinion have deterred many people from cosplaying certain characters that they want to cosplay, out of fear not just of negative reception but outright insults and harassments.
** Skin tone is an even more touchy topic. Some people insist that people should only cosplay characters of their race, or who at least [[AmbiguouslyBrown seem to be]]. White people playing Asian characters is sometimes allowed in these debates because the characters '[[{{mukokuseki}} don't look Asian]]' though it's not unknown to be against that. Others consider this racist and you should be able to cosplay whomever you want.
** Whether light skinned people can darken their skin for cosplay is ''very'' controversial; some see it as simply trying to replicate a character, others feel that it's too evocative of {{Blackface}} for comfort.
** The regulation of weapon props at conventions, ''especially'' gun props, is a very hot topic, especially in jurisdictions where gun control is a big deal. Those who push for stricter regulations or outright bans argue that it's better to play it safe especially since most cops are unlikely to know about the series people cosplay and thus may assume anything that looks like a real gun is a real gun because of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Others don't like working on fancy weapon props, being sure to make them distinguishable from real weapons, only to be told by con ops that they can't have that on the convention grounds. This is especially a temper-breaker argument in the United States, as the whole weapon prop debate goes hand-in-hand with the Second Amendment/gun rights debate.
* Pretty much anything and everything about animal welfare and animal rearing is up in the air. Many things are outright FlameBait:
** Physically altering your pets. Declawing, debarking, cropping ears, docking tails, etc. Understandable or horrible abuse?
** 'Designer dogs' such as "Labradoodles" or "Yorkie Poos". Are they okay to breed or not? Themes of dog overpopulation, backyard breeders, and puppy mills come into play. Do any of them have potential as genuine breeds? Are their nicknames cute or should they be treated like normal mutts?
** Whether it's humane to feed your snakes live prey. It can be very dangerous to your pet and some have moral dilemmas about putting the prey in a situation where escape is literally impossible (unless they kill the snake, which does occur).
** The best diet for any species of pet. The best brands, vegetarian cats or dogs, and whether you should make your own food.
** Dog breeds in general. Other species like cats, fish, and horses have similar debates but dogs are by far the most discussed. With documentaries like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" many have come to question many breeds. Pugs, Border Collies, Basset Hounds, Bull Terriers, and German Shepherds are some of the most commonly debated. Working bred dogs vs Show dogs, whether dog breeds are an outdated and irrelevant concept, how to fix breeds faults, whether certain breeds should become extinct, whether certain breeds are dangerous, etc
** Dog leashes. Should you use a harness, let them walk freely, or use their collar?
** The topic of 'outside cats' within the cat community. On the opposing side it's considered abusive, neglectful, bad for the environment, and dangerous for the pets. On the other side people think it's neglectful to keep your cats indoors 24/7. How to 'deal' with outside cats and feral cats is even more touchy. Whether neutering and releasing does any good, and whether feral cats are pests who should be killed, are hot topics.
** Which exotic pets are okay to own differs from person to person
** How to treat livestock.
** How should certain animal breeds look. This usually, but not always, overlaps with the aforementioned issues on health in dog breeding. For example, according to breed standards there is only one type of Chihuahua: the small "apple headed" variety. Many who own "deer headed" Chihuahuas insist that they are "better" and healthier than "apple headed" ones (due to their larger size and the fact that their heads are completely fused). Many Chihuahua purists, especially breeders, however believe that "deer headed" Chihuahuas are ill-bred and improper. Sometimes this whole issue goes so far that it even affects breeding. For example, some Bull Terrier breeders are trying to backbreed the older non-egg headed type back and some Basset Hound breeders are trying to breed their dogs to have less wrinkles and longer legs. To many other breeders this is terrible and the breeds should be kept as is.
* Vegetarians and the different variations.
** Veganism vs Vegetarianism is the most common debate. Vegetarians eat eggs and dairy products while vegans do not. The animal welfare aspects of eggs and milk are commonly debated, as are how healthy or dangerous being vegan is.
** Raw veganism is notoriously controversial. Some jump up and down praising it while others find it unhealthy.
** People who are vegetarian for health vs those who are vegetarian for animal welfare or animal rights.
** Is being vegan a "lifestyle" or is it simply food related? Whether vegans can wear leather, visit zoos, and the like is a touchy topic.
** Asking whether it's safe to raise a child vegetarian or especially vegan is asking for trouble. What age it's okay to be vegetarian also depends. Some parents, especially non-veg ones, say they wouldn't let their kids be vegetarian until they're eighteen while others are okay with having a vegetarian teen. Whether elementary or junior high schooler should be allowed to become vegetarian is more debatable though.
* Among cruise fans, private balconies are a highly contested design element. Some people won't stay in a suite without them but others think they are ugly, windy, and would prefer bigger suites with windows instead. The issue tends to represent the two different groups that cruises market to, the deal seeker and the ocean liner enthusiast. The deal seeker wants a cruise ship with amenities, including things like water slides, a surfing pool, and of course private balconies. The ocean liner enthusiast cares more about the look of the ship and how well fitted out her public spaces are and generally don't show interest in any features you couldn't find on the ''Titanic''.
%%* Within miniature {{Wargaming}} communities, metal vs plastic miniatures.
%%* Among editors, writers, and English teachers, the Oxford comma is SeriousBusiness.
* Among fans of so-called hobbyist board games, ''Monopoly'' is ''extremely'' contentious. Many board game enthusiasts hate Monopoly with a burning passion, so much so that some might call it TheScrappy of board games, and even argue that its reputation for being drawn-out and cutthroat outright damages the reputation of board games as a whole and makes people unwilling to try "modern" board games. However, other board gamers argue that Monopoly itself is perfectly fine--the problem is that everyone learns to play it incorrectly, and that the game has been stuffed full of house rules that are counterproductive to the way the game is ''meant'' to be played. Mentioning the game anywhere around board gamers invariably leads to a debate on the game's merits or lack thereof.
[[/folder]]
----
----
[[foldercontrol]]
[[folder:Channels and Distributors]]
* Creator/AdultSwim: Anime vs Comedy. And within the comedy fanbase, Animated vs. [[NetworkDecay Live-Action]]... as well as Original Programming vs. Syndicated/Imported.
* While many shows on Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} are prone to this, the network ''itself'' has been prone to this for ''years''. 1) When it started to [[SeasonalRot "decline"]], which is usually chosen as 1986, 1990, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2009. 2) When it started to get [[GrowingTheBeard "good"]], which many people say is in 1985 when Fred Seibert and Alan Goodman saved the network, 1991 when the Nicktoons debuted, 1999 when ''WesternAnimation/SpongeBobSquarePants'' debuted, or many different years. 3) When it started to get [[WinBACKTheCrowd "better"]], which is often divided by many people with real no specific time. Lastly, 4) if the network is still "good", or keeps getting "worse and worse".
* Creator/CartoonNetwork is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it [[GrowingTheBeard really hit its stride]] with the Powerhouse era and [[SeasonalRot went to hell]] in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the Advertising/{{CN City}} era and started to decline in 2007 with the Fall era, or got bad in 2009 with the debut of Creator/CNReal. Others will say it hit its stride with the Powerhouse era, declined, but not by a considerable margin, in the CN City era, fully cemented into its DorkAge with the Fall era and reached its nadir in 2009 with the debut of CN Real. Another huge debate is if it's still sucking to this day, or it got [[WinBACKTheCrowd a whole lot better]] in 2010, and continues to get better.
* Creator/DisneyChannel also gets this, though not to the extent of Nickelodeon. Either it was great from 1983 to 1997 but got worse from 1997 to 2002, and got really bad in 2002, was at it's best from 1997 to 2006 and got bad since, or got bad in 2006, and may still not be the best but has gotten a little better since.
* Creator/DisneyChannel and Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} have the cartoons vs Live Action debate. People tend to side with the cartoons for both channels, but pretty much everyone agrees that Creator/CartoonNetwork [[NetworkDecay abandoning animation]] was a bad idea.
* The digital video game store Website/GogCom branching out into selling movies proved to be controversial among its userbase, since plenty of people are afraid that it will take away the focus from games. The fact that they don't sell any big-name movies (just indie films and documentaries) caused people to feel underwhelmed and disappointed. (And the inclusion of ''Film/BroniesTheExtremelyUnexpectedAdultFansOfMyLittlePony'' in the initial lineup annoyed people who are sick of seeing the fandom leave its mark on everything.)
[[/folder]]
[[folder:General Fiction]]
* Fans of all things zombie have a broken base over whether or not Romero-style zombies can successfully over take the [[RealLife real world]]. One group of fans says yes, and it would happen fast. Another group says it can happen but nowhere near as fast as it's depicted in movies/literature, etc... Basically it'll be like a slow burn. The last group says a zombie plague won't end the world because everyone and they momma knows what a zombie is and how to dispose of it. And that the government won't just collapse within a matter of months like it's usually depicted. At the most the zombie plague would just be a recurring health problem like Cancer and Aids.
** A sub-group of the latter group agrees with this but thinks the casualties would be more devastating then the last group thinks.
** Website/{{Cracked}} discussed why the ZombieApocalypse [[http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html will fail]] and how it [[http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html could succeed]]
** There is another Zombie-related issue breaking up the fans as well, namely on the usefulness of the .22 caliber round against a zombie. Ever since Max Brooks came out with ''Literature/TheZombieSurvivalGuide'', there has been an ongoing argument on the rounds effectiveness of destroying the brain of a zombie. Proponents argue it would bounce around inside of the skull and it's more common than dirt. Detractors say there is no guarantee that it will even penetrate the skull or do that brain-destroying damage (for what it's worth, reality and the laws of physics can vouch that .22 rounds don't repeatedly pinball around inside the skulls of the living). Some have gone so far to say that the .22 is the ''only'' bullet that would be effective at stopping a zombie and all other rounds are less useful or just plain useless.
* The [[ScienceMarchesOn constantly changing image of]] dinosaurs often sparks debates. Old-school dinosaur geeks that grew up in the ''Franchise/JurassicPark''-era display a fierce harshness towards the scientifically now-accepted fact that, for example, raptors and would have been feathered or at least fuzzy, and criticize works that depict dinosaurs as realistic animals instead of reptilian movie-monsters. Meanwhile hard-core paleontology fans, knowing that the fossil evidence clearly supports their side, simply dismiss these people (often rudely). Even among them, though, there is a serious break when it comes to how close works about dinosaurs (and other prehistoric creatures) should stay to the known facts. Is it okay for non-scientific movies to still depict [[RaptorAttack raptors with scales]], or unacceptable? Should artists only draw what we can reliably infer from the fossils, or is wild speculation okay as long as it doesn't contradict the evidence? Arguments frequently occur because many paleontologists and general paleo-nerds treat their obsession as very SeriousBusiness, and don't want mass-media misrepresenting their work.
** Referenced in-universe in the book version of ''Literature/JurassicPark''. When they cloned the dinosaurs, they found that they moved far more quickly than the plodding, lumbering animals in the popular imagination and worried that people [[RealityIsUnrealistic would not accept them]]. There was some talk of creating genetically modified "slow" dinosaurs (which would also, incidentally, have been easier to control) before Hammond [[ExecutiveMeddling nixed]] it.
* Horror fans seems to be split over the quality of audacious foreign horror films when compared to American horror films. They're either refreshing and daring, or gory pretentious crap.
** Also among horror fans there's a sub-debate on what should be considered a Horror film as oppose to a Thriller and vice versa. Some feel that Thrillers are neutered horror films made for people who can't hack "Real" horror.
** Another divide is over the style and approach of making horror Films/Books, etc... Some prefer the subtlety of NothingIsScarier, MaybeMagicMaybeMundane, and DoingInTheWizard approach (Eeemplified by the people who thought ''Film/TheDescent'' was good "Until the crawlers showed up"), Some preferring the ThroughTheEyesOfMadness approach, some prefer the {{Gorn}} approach. Or perhaps some prefer the AttackOfTheKillerWhatever and or AttackOfThe50FootWhatever. Some even take the diplomatic approach and prefer all of the above.
** And within the film medium there's the whole debate over when is dark, bleak, and depressing, too dark, bleak and depressing? And the use of the DownerEnding... Some are of the opinion that people are completely missing the point and that horror is SUPPOSED to be dark, bleak, and depressing. Others take the view that using such a limiting definition and emotional palate only serves to make everything ultimately seem exactly the same. NecessaryWeasel, and AnthropicPrinciple plays a HUGE part in these debates.
** Speaking of dark tones, A common problem in horror movies tends to be the fact some fans see the genre as nothing but DarknessInducedAudienceApathy. For example: The cast of potential victims is presented as a bunch of obnoxious jerks, and/or complete idiots, to the point where it's hard to feel bad for them when they finally start dying. Although for many [[CatharsisFactor that's part of the appeal]]. On the other hand, if the horror movie has a sympathetic family as a victim it could have another negative effect ranging from ShootTheDog to MoralEventHorizon (as far as the writers, creators etc crossing it...unfairly or not) to CrossesTheLineTwice. Which could also turn off certain groups of horror fans as well, which possibly explain the constant obnoxious jerk characters as a substitute, and villains constantly being prone to being DracoInLeatherPants. Horror films (especially mainstream American horror films) likes to be broadly appealing. You can't have a popular horror film where expies of ''Series/TheWaltons'' and [[Series/TheCosbyShow The Cosbys]] are brutally murdered by the Psycho/Demon/Werewolf/Vampire/Alien. Of course, while it might be too horrifying to subject, say, a charming, wholesome, likeable family to the events of a horror film, making potential victims unlikable and rooting for the monster are both missing the point of horror. Why should you be scared of something you're actually hoping to happen? This is sort of a inherent divisiveness within the genre. Horror fans want to be scared, but doesn't want it to come by way of hurting innocent likeable characters. Which is terribly ironic considering certain horror fans complain about the genre lacking likeable characters.
*** The disagreements over bleak and dark tone seems to be mostly a matter of personal taste than anything.
*** Same with having actual ghosts/demons/aliens etc..in the film. Some people think that's what makes a real horror film while others think it's a cheap gimmick.
** And whether or not to use humor and comedy. Does it add to the movie, and mood or destroys it?
** For the Literature medium there are those who prefer the short and simple stories to the 900 page Doorstops. Mostly because they think Horror stories are much more effective as short stories, as bigger books tends to drag.
** There's also a debate over perceived attitudes towards the genre. For instance on message boards there will be a fan who'll be like "Yaaay they're making Terror On Cliched Street part 20!", and another disgruntled one who'll be like "*ugh* Hollywood has run out of ideas". The latter thinking the former is everything that is wrong with horror today. While the former think that the latter group are a bunch of pretentious Jerkasses who think foreign horror is the best thing since indoor plumbing, and is taking the genre too seriously. While the latter fires back by saying they're the ones that are giving horror fans a "bad name" (and by extension the whole genre).
** People argue that if it doesn't have any supernatural/fantasy/sci-fi elements it's not a real horror film. Some think adding too much sci-fi and technobable ruins the genre, likely a microcosm of the Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane approach where they use science or sci-fi to explain away the paranormal/supernatural (which some see as a cop out). Same thing can be said for adding in action
*** In addition to the above is it a bad idea to try and explain everything in a horror story/plot. Or is it best to leave it mysterious and vague?, Or is that a WriterCopOut?
** Anytime a MaybeMagicMaybeMundane horror movie turns out to be RealAfterAll. Case in point The Last Exorcism.
** There's also accusations of people RunningTheAsylum for the worse, By keeping all of the arguably negative stuff around because they think it's the norm for the genre. Creating a horror version of Sci Fi Ghetto.
** Found Footage horror is very polarizing among horror fans. Regardless of how well made they might be.
** It doesn't help that the horror genre is subjective (and polarizing) to begin with.
* Speaking of horror genre, there seems to be a divide on how to make zombie films/books/shows, and what makes a good zombie story as oppose to a generic zombie story. Should they be humorous zombie killing action pieces? Or dramatic, thought provoking, Socio-Political commentary and or deep character studies?
** As mentioned in the 28 Days Later example, what does or does not constitute a proper cinema Zombie is up for big debate. Can Zombies be fast or does that fly in the face of what a Zombie should be? Are they mindless walking corpses with no goal other than to eat the living, or should they have a deeper level that allows them to form basic plans and organize? Are they caused by magic? toxic waste? a virus? Numerous fans will insist that changing a single element destroys the Zombie title.
* Combat robots, as seen in stuff like ''Series/BattleBots'' and ''Series/RobotWars'', have a split between fans of robots designed around damage and destruction and fans of robots designed around technique and manipulation. The former favor [[SpectacularSpinning full-body spinners, flywheel users, spinning drums]], and [[CarryABigStick hammer-bots]] whereas the latter prefer [[GrievousHarmWithABody lifters, trappers]], [[BareFistedMonk push-bots, and wedges]], with [[LauncherMove launchers]] somewhere in between (but generally well-liked by both parties, as these bots require finesse ''and'' create spectacle when they work as intended). The former group of fans want to see robots getting torn apart and ripped to shreds, and the latter group of fans like seeing skilled piloting used to control the tide of battle. Both groups tend to see the other as rather boring to watch, and hence there is little peace between them. It doesn't help matters that the winners of these competitions tend to form cycles between damage-based robots and technique-based robots.
* A FanworkBan can sometimes start one of these, between fans who support the author's decision and fans who lambast the author and/or defy the ban.
* Among fans of {{crossdress|er}}ing male characters (as well as real-life male crossdressers), there's a bit of debate over whether it's acceptable to call them "traps", stemming from an ages old meme about reacting to such a person with the {{memetic|Mutation}} [[Film/ReturnOfTheJedi "It's a trap!"]] line. Proponents think it's fine and people who complain are overreacting based on an irrelevant issue, opponents feel that it carries negative implications; specifically, the idea that a crossdressing man is deceitful, to say ''nothing'' about the term also being used to refer to UsefulNotes/{{trans|gender}}women which some feel that calling crossdressers "traps" already skirts too close to. Nearly ''any'' discussion of this topic between people with differing opinions will quickly degrade into mudslinging.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Hardware and Programming]]
* User-friendly Linux distributions such as Ubuntu vs. "power" distros such as Gentoo or Slackware.
** Ubuntu itself causes a bit of a broken base for the Debian crowd: should Debian be credited more or would that tarnish Debian's reputation as rock solid? And then there's Canonical's recent UI antics, like rearranging buttons on the title bar or nuking the [[strike:system tray]] [[InsistentTerminology notification area]](the fact that they give the latter drifting from Microsoft's original vision as one of their reasons doesn't help). And then there's the the debate over whether GNU's insistence on "GNU/Linux" is mere egotism or justified.
* The Great Editor War, a long and epic battle between the users of Emacs and Vi. The battle between these two programming editors has gone on longer than the Mac vs. PC debate. The rivalry has long been joked about: even the normally bitter Richard Stallman has poked fun at the debate, declaring himself head of the "Church of Emacs" declaring war on the "Cult of Vi."
* Android has this in many different ways:
** Rooted[[note]]Granting superuser/admin privileges to the user, a concept familiar to *nix users[[/note]] or non-rooted? Proponents of rooting feel that it opens up many new options for tailoring one's Android experience, while opponents are concerned that rooted phones are more vulnerable to security exploits than non-rooted ones.
** Official Android versions or custom ones?
* iOS (including iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch):
** Like with rooting above, jailbreaking is a point of contention among users. Some enjoy the extended capabilities of a jailbroken phone, while others feel that it's a bricked phone or an exploited phone waiting to happen.
** iOS 7 and up vs. earlier versions. There are those who won't upgrade from iOS 6 or earlier, primarily because of the visual style of later versions, while others either enjoy the aesthetic or feel that it's too small of an issue to be concerned about.
** A huge one exists over rumors that the iPhone 7 won't have the 3.5-mm audio jack. Some users are angry enough about it that they intend to [[ScrewThisImOuttaHere bail out of Apple's ecosystem]], others think that detractors are overreacting and that the problem can be easily solved with a 3.5mm-to-Lightning adapter (which itself has the rebuttal that it prevents listening to audio and charging at the same time).
* Windows 8. Whereas certain previous versions of Windows got perfectly justified hate for performance and compatibility problems, 8 has none of those. However opinions on the radically updated UI are either "Greatest Windows Ever" or "The New Vista". No in between.
** Windows 10 is either "[[SurprisinglyImprovedSequel Windows 8 but with less suck]] and free[[note]]for the first year of 10's release[[/note]]" or [[UnwantedAssistance "that upgrade that Microsoft kept shoving down my throat so now I hate it so much"]].
* The ''goto'' statement in programming languages. Does using it automatically make you a lazy/stingy/paranoid person with no regards for clean code? Or are the ones who avoid it ''"quiche eaters"'' who are just wannabes who can never be a ''real programmer'' and are idiotically forfeiting their job security to other ''"quiche eaters"''?
* Style guides for programming can be a highly contentious issue for a number of reasons.
** How many spaces should each indentation take up? Most people generally argue for either two spaces or four, but other choices are not unheard of.
** Should indentation use tabs or spaces? The former allows everyone to use their preferred indentation size, therefore negating the above debate, but the latter guarantees that alignment stays consistent across all machines.
** For languages that use curly brackets, where do you place the brackets? This one gets particularly messy since many of the formally-codified styles have different standards for different types of blocks (e.g. functions versus loops).
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Technology and Weapons]]
* [[CoolVsAwesome Boeing vs Airbus]] is a huge one in the aerospace industry world. The two companies are notable for possibly the bitterest and nastiest commercial rivalry in the world of manufacturing. It is exacerbated by various factors, such as Airbus's "Reimbursable Launch Investment" from EU governments (loans that have to be paid back at generous rates of interest, plus royalties if the aircraft is a success) and the US government's effective subsidizing of Boeing with pork barrel military contracts (and in a few cases free money), which were the subject of the world's largest trade dispute ever during 2005-2012, which ultimately ended with a World Trade Organisation decision in Airbus's favor. The fallout is still settling, although there are signs that the US and Boeing have tried to get around the decision, and the EU is threatening to place trade sanctions of ''$19 billion'' on Boeing. Add lots of internet UsefulNotes/MisplacedNationalism (Americans want red-blooded American planes whose wives make them apple pie and who take their kids to baseball practice, not cappucino-drinking European commie planes with bad teeth and who spend their time looking at modern art galleries, [[NotSoDifferent and vice-versa]]) and the thing can get very nasty on enthusiast forums. It also reaches the pilots too - older pilots who were weaned on Boeing products before Airbus hacked out its market share in TheNineties prefer their old friends, but younger pilots prefer Airbuses because they are easier to fly and because of their standardized cockpit layouts a pilot can qualify on one and have done most of the work for all the others.
** Similar case happens with so called [[UsefulNotes/{{Capitalism}} NewSpace]] and [[UsefulNotes/{{NASA}} OldSpace]]. [=NewSpace=] believes with the advances of private spaceflight and privately funded science ventures NASA should be abolished, while [=OldSpace=] believes private ventures will fall into greed and unable to produce science results truthfully. With success by [=SpaceX=] and the increasingly unlikelihood of SLS and JWST being actually operational with '''billions''' of dollar already spend, [=NewSpace=] is gaining ground. However, since both are silence minorities against the American public, they are unable to change anything in Congress, which is gearing toward funneling pork barrels to Boeing, Lockhart Martin and ATK while trying to abolish NASA.
* Porsche cars. Every single time a new model line is introduced it divides the owners/fan base. This happened when the Cayenne SUV came out, before that it was old school air-cooled 911 fans incensed at the new water-cooled 911, universally the 911 fans are putting down anything not-911 and getting a similar treatment from non-911 fans, and way back in the sixties there was the now familiar cry of "It's not a real Porsche!" when Porsche made their first major model change, introducing the 911 to replace the 356 model.
** Car companies can fall victim to this. General Motors is a very good example, being essentially the automotive equivalent of Franchise/SonicTheHedgehog. Pontiac's dead? Good riddance, or is is ruined forever? Cadillac having front-wheel-drive cars? Acceptable or not?
* AK-47 vs. M-16 for assault rifle people. The youtube videos have huge numbers of comments, and that's just the beginning.
** To ~93% percent of the participants on both sides, the AK-74 is just an academic term, and the AK-100 series doesn't even exist. To the AK side, the M-16 never got upgraded, or cleaning kits, or any sort of improvement at all. To the M-16 side, the AK is so innacurate that the safest place to be when it is fired is directly in front of the muzzle, and they refuse to even touch Kalashnikovs, or even discuss the fact that certain members of the AK-100 family come in the same caliber as their beloved M-16's. Then the AK fanbase assumes that an M-16 will always jam, no matter what, and that the small caliber rounds can only kill you if you are shot 10 times, or if you bleed out on the ground for a couple minutes, and wooe betide you should you either take a third option or say that you like both. [[note]] Basically, each side looks at the other gun as it was when first issued in Vietnam, ignoring improvements during the conflict, let alone the many decades since. [[/note]] However, depending on the setting, your mileage may vary significantly.
** Even more vicious is the infighting between diferent members and factions of each camp. The M-16 people argue over mods and manufacturers. The AK people go on over the 74's 5.45X39 round vs. the old 7.62 and whether or not it was a good idea.
*** Nowadays this have eased somewhat, with AK's availability in almost any caliber imagined. People still argue which one is better, though.
*** Don't forget country of manufacture (particularly the cheaper ones like Romanians are very divisive), importer, chromed vs non-chromed, and stamped vs. milled.
* In handguns, there's the debates about revolvers versus pistols. The revolver camp goes on about the low caliber ammunition used by pistols and how unreliable they are. The pistol camp goes on about how revolvers are antiquated and that magnum catriges are just silly.
** Don't even get started on the M9 vs. M1911 debate, or for that matter, any sort of debate about which makes a better bullet: a small, fast cartidge that tumbles through flesh, or a big heavy slug that wrecks whatever it hits.
** Any brand of pistol vs. another brand of pistol. One common example (involving the two biggest selling types of firearms) is Glock "Safe Action" vs 1911-style "cocked and locked" carry.
* Swords are not immune to this. Probably the deepest divide is about the katana: [[KatanasAreJustBetter are they the greatest sword ever made, perfectly designed by master craftsmen and capable of outclassing any Western design]]? [[JokeItem Or are they completely worthless hunks of glorified pig iron, doomed to shatter like glass and get the wielder killed the moment they come into contact with a good European longsword, overrated by]] [[OccidentalOtaku weeaboos desperate to justify their love of all things Japanese]]? [[TakeAThirdOption Or are they the best possible response to the poor quality of Japanese iron ore?]]
* [[ThoseWackyNazis World War 2 German weapons and vehicles]]. [[StupidJetpackHitler Hyper-advanced designs that paved the way for all modern military weapons, could beat anything the Allies made three ways to sunday and would have let the Nazis win the war had they just been produced enough/Hitler not been so crazy]], or [[AwesomeYetImpractical overly-complex and ridiculously expensive designs that while using some innovative features were not at all reliable and have been blown out of proportion by history]]. Expect arguments to veer into the territory of ArtisticLicenseHistory and GodwinsLaw.
* In the earth sciences, there's a pretty stark divide between earth scientists in the private sector, who generally view the planet as a resource to be utilized, and earth scientists in academia who tend to view the planet as a wonder to be conserved.
* In 2013, Apple massively changed the interface of its iOS software, replacing the then-iconic pseudo-3D designs with a much flatter appearance. The public was largely divided on whether it was a refreshing modernization or an ugly, user-unfriendly gimmick, and though most people have forgotten about the disagreement by now, it doesn't seem like it will ever totally die down as long as Apple keeps the same basic design language.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Other Other]]
* Video game magazines aren't safe from this either. ''Magazine/NintendoPower'' got the most flack since many anti Nintendo fans would always claim that the magazine was "biased" towards its own first party games by giving them high scores. When ''Nintendo Power'' was outsourced to another publisher, the staff slightly changed. People claimed Nintendo Power was biased up until the very end, but would somehow agree with them if the magazine gave any game an 8 or less. Then, of course, you had people who thought the reviews were just fine and got into {{Flame War}}s against those who bashed the magazine.
* What should be considered Porn or "nude/erotic art"... [[TakeAThirdOption or both]]. If there's a line, where should the distinction be drawn? Keep in mind erotic art can be very pornographic as well. In fact the line is so blurred some think there isn't a difference anymore.
** There's actually a website that lets you be the judge regarding some of the pictures they show you.
* Black and white vs colour photography: one side points to the impact of monochrome, and questions why any photographer worth the name would want to use anything else; the other side points to the fact that we see in colour, and that the technical issues with colour fidelity and dynamic range were resolved years ago.
* Talking about certain contestants on ''Series/ThePriceIsRight'' that make bids that just says "I'm only making this bid to get attention", such as making a $2,000,000 bid, bids that are $420, or any bid whose last two numbers are 69. Fans of the show can't seem to decide whether or not the silly bids doesn't do anyone any harm or if it robs other people a spot on contestant's row because the idiot contestant wanted to get attention to themselves and not play the game seriously.
* Two such instances pop up in the tenth chapter of the crossover between ''Franchise/LyricalNanoha'' and ''Anime/SailorMoon'', ''Fanfic/WhiteDevilOfTheMoon'', and surprisingly, they are unrelated to [[spoiler:Nanoha and Fate getting together]]
** Was Nanoha justified in harshly calling the Queen out on how she raised Serenity? Additionally, was this in character for Nanoha, who is more responsible than Usagi or Serenity, or was this contrary to someone who would "befriend" her enemies?
** Vivio defeating Picoha (a character based off of Usagi's future daughter Chibi-Usa) and causing her and her alternate timeline to disappear was also a controversial action, especially since it was essentially killing her. WordOfGod has clarified, however, that Picoha was the aggressor, attacking without stating her intent, and Vivio tried to defeat her non-lethally, without knowing what would happen to her.
* Analytic vs. continental philosophy.
** Moral Philosophy/Ethics in general. Okay, the debate about what's morally right and wrong is going to be cause for a lot of arguments in near enough every academic and professional field, but in philosophy, it's divided even more significantly among followers of different schools of ethical thought. Is the best/most accurate theory a consequentialist one like utilitarianism, holding that the consequences of an action dictate whether it's right? A deontological one, holding that the intentions dictate how ethical an action is? Virtue Ethics based on ideals and personalities? Various other theories based on everything from social/political theories to attempts at scientific ones? And then there's the religious side of things and the various churches and groups making up the likes of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and what they each say are morally right and wrong...
* In tattoo circles, stick n' poke tattoos (tattoos done with a singular needle by people that aren't tattoo artists): are they unsanitary and the people that get them idiots, or are they an important part of tattoo culture and the people against them are snobs?
* In psychiatry, should patients be treated with drugs or counseling? This one is particularly nasty, and is at the heart of the controversy over the DSM-V.
** There is also some debate over whether therapy must be validated/evidence-based, like like cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy and family-based treatment, with some saying that only relying on things that have been proven to actually work is unrealistic for a real world, clinical setting, and that the view ignores the value of experience/anecdotes, and the other side insisting that mental health practitioners act like health professionals. It doesn't help that the group against evidence-based-psychology is mainly made up of therapists, who have lower accreditation requirements than psychologist and psychiatrists, and that the evidence-based camp also says that practitioners should make their success rates available so potential clients can judge what's worth paying for.
* Descriptivism vs. prescriptivism in spelling and grammar. Do language experts ''prescribe'' "correct" spelling and grammar, or merely ''describe'' spelling and grammar as it's actually used? The Descriptivists pretty much won that one, but that only leads to further splits. When does a grammatical construction or alternate spelling pass from the vernacular to the "standard"? How many people need to make a certain mistake before it stops being a mistake and starts being the new accepted usage? Should etymology figure into these decisions? What about clarity? These debates have been raging since the days of [[FandomRivalry Samuel Johnson and Daniel Webster]].
* In statistics, there are several fairly exotic types of probability that take a great amount of time to understand and practice, and have fairly unusual and strict assumptions that must be met, leading to debates as to whether they are of any value to practicing statisticians.
* Bev Francis triggered one for female UsefulNotes/{{bodybuilding}} as a contestant in Miss Olympia 1991. She weighed in at ''160'' pounds (She's 5-foot-5, fyi). Previously, no other female contestant had ever been that muscular. She came in at second place, having lost by a single point and was leading after two rounds, only to be overtaken in the concluding rounds. The debate of "How much muscle on a woman is too much?” has raged ever since.
* Cosplay:
** Making one's own costumes vs. commissioning or ordering them. Some feel that craftsmanship is a very vital element of cosplay, while others find that it's too much extra effort just to have a pretty costume and prefer to focus on the modeling aspect of it.
** [[CasualCompetitiveConflict Cosplaying simply for recreation vs cosplaying for competition or as a profession]].
** Whether one should match the body type of the character they're cosplaying. Those who say it should think it's aesthetically unpleasant at best and NauseaFuel at worst to see, for example, a chubby [[Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann Yoko Littner]] or a non-muscular [[Anime/KillLaKill Ira Gamagoori]]. Others point out that they should be able to cosplay whoever they please and that some people simply aren't able to match their characters' physique even if they do put their efforts into it, especially if height is the main issue (going to chubby to lean or vice versa can be done with a lot of time and dedication, but losing or gaining anything more than one inch as an adult with a fully-developed skeleton is straight up impossible). In fact, people of the former opinion have deterred many people from cosplaying certain characters that they want to cosplay, out of fear not just of negative reception but outright insults and harassments.
** Skin tone is an even more touchy topic. Some people insist that people should only cosplay characters of their race, or who at least [[AmbiguouslyBrown seem to be]]. White people playing Asian characters is sometimes allowed in these debates because the characters '[[{{mukokuseki}} don't look Asian]]' though it's not unknown to be against that. Others consider this racist and you should be able to cosplay whomever you want.
** Whether light skinned people can darken their skin for cosplay is ''very'' controversial; some see it as simply trying to replicate a character, others feel that it's too evocative of {{Blackface}} for comfort.
** The regulation of weapon props at conventions, ''especially'' gun props, is a very hot topic, especially in jurisdictions where gun control is a big deal. Those who push for stricter regulations or outright bans argue that it's better to play it safe especially since most cops are unlikely to know about the series people cosplay and thus may assume anything that looks like a real gun is a real gun because of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Others don't like working on fancy weapon props, being sure to make them distinguishable from real weapons, only to be told by con ops that they can't have that on the convention grounds. This is especially a temper-breaker argument in the United States, as the whole weapon prop debate goes hand-in-hand with the Second Amendment/gun rights debate.
* Pretty much anything and everything about animal welfare and animal rearing is up in the air. Many things are outright FlameBait:
** Physically altering your pets. Declawing, debarking, cropping ears, docking tails, etc. Understandable or horrible abuse?
** 'Designer dogs' such as "Labradoodles" or "Yorkie Poos". Are they okay to breed or not? Themes of dog overpopulation, backyard breeders, and puppy mills come into play. Do any of them have potential as genuine breeds? Are their nicknames cute or should they be treated like normal mutts?
** Whether it's humane to feed your snakes live prey. It can be very dangerous to your pet and some have moral dilemmas about putting the prey in a situation where escape is literally impossible (unless they kill the snake, which does occur).
** The best diet for any species of pet. The best brands, vegetarian cats or dogs, and whether you should make your own food.
** Dog breeds in general. Other species like cats, fish, and horses have similar debates but dogs are by far the most discussed. With documentaries like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" many have come to question many breeds. Pugs, Border Collies, Basset Hounds, Bull Terriers, and German Shepherds are some of the most commonly debated. Working bred dogs vs Show dogs, whether dog breeds are an outdated and irrelevant concept, how to fix breeds faults, whether certain breeds should become extinct, whether certain breeds are dangerous, etc
** Dog leashes. Should you use a harness, let them walk freely, or use their collar?
** The topic of 'outside cats' within the cat community. On the opposing side it's considered abusive, neglectful, bad for the environment, and dangerous for the pets. On the other side people think it's neglectful to keep your cats indoors 24/7. How to 'deal' with outside cats and feral cats is even more touchy. Whether neutering and releasing does any good, and whether feral cats are pests who should be killed, are hot topics.
** Which exotic pets are okay to own differs from person to person
** How to treat livestock.
** How should certain animal breeds look. This usually, but not always, overlaps with the aforementioned issues on health in dog breeding. For example, according to breed standards there is only one type of Chihuahua: the small "apple headed" variety. Many who own "deer headed" Chihuahuas insist that they are "better" and healthier than "apple headed" ones (due to their larger size and the fact that their heads are completely fused). Many Chihuahua purists, especially breeders, however believe that "deer headed" Chihuahuas are ill-bred and improper. Sometimes this whole issue goes so far that it even affects breeding. For example, some Bull Terrier breeders are trying to backbreed the older non-egg headed type back and some Basset Hound breeders are trying to breed their dogs to have less wrinkles and longer legs. To many other breeders this is terrible and the breeds should be kept as is.
* Vegetarians and the different variations.
** Veganism vs Vegetarianism is the most common debate. Vegetarians eat eggs and dairy products while vegans do not. The animal welfare aspects of eggs and milk are commonly debated, as are how healthy or dangerous being vegan is.
** Raw veganism is notoriously controversial. Some jump up and down praising it while others find it unhealthy.
** People who are vegetarian for health vs those who are vegetarian for animal welfare or animal rights.
** Is being vegan a "lifestyle" or is it simply food related? Whether vegans can wear leather, visit zoos, and the like is a touchy topic.
** Asking whether it's safe to raise a child vegetarian or especially vegan is asking for trouble. What age it's okay to be vegetarian also depends. Some parents, especially non-veg ones, say they wouldn't let their kids be vegetarian until they're eighteen while others are okay with having a vegetarian teen. Whether elementary or junior high schooler should be allowed to become vegetarian is more debatable though.
* Among cruise fans, private balconies are a highly contested design element. Some people won't stay in a suite without them but others think they are ugly, windy, and would prefer bigger suites with windows instead. The issue tends to represent the two different groups that cruises market to, the deal seeker and the ocean liner enthusiast. The deal seeker wants a cruise ship with amenities, including things like water slides, a surfing pool, and of course private balconies. The ocean liner enthusiast cares more about the look of the ship and how well fitted out her public spaces are and generally don't show interest in any features you couldn't find on the ''Titanic''.
%%* Within miniature {{Wargaming}} communities, metal vs plastic miniatures.
%%* Among editors, writers, and English teachers, the Oxford comma is SeriousBusiness.
* Among fans of so-called hobbyist board games, ''Monopoly'' is ''extremely'' contentious. Many board game enthusiasts hate Monopoly with a burning passion, so much so that some might call it TheScrappy of board games, and even argue that its reputation for being drawn-out and cutthroat outright damages the reputation of board games as a whole and makes people unwilling to try "modern" board games. However, other board gamers argue that Monopoly itself is perfectly fine--the problem is that everyone learns to play it incorrectly, and that the game has been stuffed full of house rules that are counterproductive to the way the game is ''meant'' to be played. Mentioning the game anywhere around board gamers invariably leads to a debate on the game's merits or lack thereof.
[[/folder]]
----
to:
----
[[foldercontrol]]
[[folder:Channels and Distributors]]
* Creator/AdultSwim: Anime vs Comedy. And within the comedy fanbase, Animated vs. [[NetworkDecay Live-Action]]... as well as Original Programming vs. Syndicated/Imported.
* While many shows on Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} are prone to this, the network ''itself'' has been prone to this for ''years''. 1) When it started to [[SeasonalRot "decline"]], which is usually chosen as 1986, 1990, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2009. 2) When it started to get [[GrowingTheBeard "good"]], which many people say is in 1985 when Fred Seibert and Alan Goodman saved the network, 1991 when the Nicktoons debuted, 1999 when ''WesternAnimation/SpongeBobSquarePants'' debuted, or many different years. 3) When it started to get [[WinBACKTheCrowd "better"]], which is often divided by many people with real no specific time. Lastly, 4) if the network is still "good", or keeps getting "worse and worse".
* Creator/CartoonNetwork is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it [[GrowingTheBeard really hit its stride]] with the Powerhouse era and [[SeasonalRot went to hell]] in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the Advertising/{{CN City}} era and started to decline in 2007 with the Fall era, or got bad in 2009 with the debut of Creator/CNReal. Others will say it hit its stride with the Powerhouse era, declined, but not by a considerable margin, in the CN City era, fully cemented into its DorkAge with the Fall era and reached its nadir in 2009 with the debut of CN Real. Another huge debate is if it's still sucking to this day, or it got [[WinBACKTheCrowd a whole lot better]] in 2010, and continues to get better.
* Creator/DisneyChannel also gets this, though not to the extent of Nickelodeon. Either it was great from 1983 to 1997 but got worse from 1997 to 2002, and got really bad in 2002, was at it's best from 1997 to 2006 and got bad since, or got bad in 2006, and may still not be the best but has gotten a little better since.
* Creator/DisneyChannel and Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} have the cartoons vs Live Action debate. People tend to side with the cartoons for both channels, but pretty much everyone agrees that Creator/CartoonNetwork [[NetworkDecay abandoning animation]] was a bad idea.
* The digital video game store Website/GogCom branching out into selling movies proved to be controversial among its userbase, since plenty of people are afraid that it will take away the focus from games. The fact that they don't sell any big-name movies (just indie films and documentaries) caused people to feel underwhelmed and disappointed. (And the inclusion of ''Film/BroniesTheExtremelyUnexpectedAdultFansOfMyLittlePony'' in the initial lineup annoyed people who are sick of seeing the fandom leave its mark on everything.)
[[/folder]]
[[folder:General Fiction]]
* Fans of all things zombie have a broken base over whether or not Romero-style zombies can successfully over take the [[RealLife real world]]. One group of fans says yes, and it would happen fast. Another group says it can happen but nowhere near as fast as it's depicted in movies/literature, etc... Basically it'll be like a slow burn. The last group says a zombie plague won't end the world because everyone and they momma knows what a zombie is and how to dispose of it. And that the government won't just collapse within a matter of months like it's usually depicted. At the most the zombie plague would just be a recurring health problem like Cancer and Aids.
** A sub-group of the latter group agrees with this but thinks the casualties would be more devastating then the last group thinks.
** Website/{{Cracked}} discussed why the ZombieApocalypse [[http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html will fail]] and how it [[http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html could succeed]]
** There is another Zombie-related issue breaking up the fans as well, namely on the usefulness of the .22 caliber round against a zombie. Ever since Max Brooks came out with ''Literature/TheZombieSurvivalGuide'', there has been an ongoing argument on the rounds effectiveness of destroying the brain of a zombie. Proponents argue it would bounce around inside of the skull and it's more common than dirt. Detractors say there is no guarantee that it will even penetrate the skull or do that brain-destroying damage (for what it's worth, reality and the laws of physics can vouch that .22 rounds don't repeatedly pinball around inside the skulls of the living). Some have gone so far to say that the .22 is the ''only'' bullet that would be effective at stopping a zombie and all other rounds are less useful or just plain useless.
* The [[ScienceMarchesOn constantly changing image of]] dinosaurs often sparks debates. Old-school dinosaur geeks that grew up in the ''Franchise/JurassicPark''-era display a fierce harshness towards the scientifically now-accepted fact that, for example, raptors and would have been feathered or at least fuzzy, and criticize works that depict dinosaurs as realistic animals instead of reptilian movie-monsters. Meanwhile hard-core paleontology fans, knowing that the fossil evidence clearly supports their side, simply dismiss these people (often rudely). Even among them, though, there is a serious break when it comes to how close works about dinosaurs (and other prehistoric creatures) should stay to the known facts. Is it okay for non-scientific movies to still depict [[RaptorAttack raptors with scales]], or unacceptable? Should artists only draw what we can reliably infer from the fossils, or is wild speculation okay as long as it doesn't contradict the evidence? Arguments frequently occur because many paleontologists and general paleo-nerds treat their obsession as very SeriousBusiness, and don't want mass-media misrepresenting their work.
** Referenced in-universe in the book version of ''Literature/JurassicPark''. When they cloned the dinosaurs, they found that they moved far more quickly than the plodding, lumbering animals in the popular imagination and worried that people [[RealityIsUnrealistic would not accept them]]. There was some talk of creating genetically modified "slow" dinosaurs (which would also, incidentally, have been easier to control) before Hammond [[ExecutiveMeddling nixed]] it.
* Horror fans seems to be split over the quality of audacious foreign horror films when compared to American horror films. They're either refreshing and daring, or gory pretentious crap.
** Also among horror fans there's a sub-debate on what should be considered a Horror film as oppose to a Thriller and vice versa. Some feel that Thrillers are neutered horror films made for people who can't hack "Real" horror.
** Another divide is over the style and approach of making horror Films/Books, etc... Some prefer the subtlety of NothingIsScarier, MaybeMagicMaybeMundane, and DoingInTheWizard approach (Eeemplified by the people who thought ''Film/TheDescent'' was good "Until the crawlers showed up"), Some preferring the ThroughTheEyesOfMadness approach, some prefer the {{Gorn}} approach. Or perhaps some prefer the AttackOfTheKillerWhatever and or AttackOfThe50FootWhatever. Some even take the diplomatic approach and prefer all of the above.
** And within the film medium there's the whole debate over when is dark, bleak, and depressing, too dark, bleak and depressing? And the use of the DownerEnding... Some are of the opinion that people are completely missing the point and that horror is SUPPOSED to be dark, bleak, and depressing. Others take the view that using such a limiting definition and emotional palate only serves to make everything ultimately seem exactly the same. NecessaryWeasel, and AnthropicPrinciple plays a HUGE part in these debates.
** Speaking of dark tones, A common problem in horror movies tends to be the fact some fans see the genre as nothing but DarknessInducedAudienceApathy. For example: The cast of potential victims is presented as a bunch of obnoxious jerks, and/or complete idiots, to the point where it's hard to feel bad for them when they finally start dying. Although for many [[CatharsisFactor that's part of the appeal]]. On the other hand, if the horror movie has a sympathetic family as a victim it could have another negative effect ranging from ShootTheDog to MoralEventHorizon (as far as the writers, creators etc crossing it...unfairly or not) to CrossesTheLineTwice. Which could also turn off certain groups of horror fans as well, which possibly explain the constant obnoxious jerk characters as a substitute, and villains constantly being prone to being DracoInLeatherPants. Horror films (especially mainstream American horror films) likes to be broadly appealing. You can't have a popular horror film where expies of ''Series/TheWaltons'' and [[Series/TheCosbyShow The Cosbys]] are brutally murdered by the Psycho/Demon/Werewolf/Vampire/Alien. Of course, while it might be too horrifying to subject, say, a charming, wholesome, likeable family to the events of a horror film, making potential victims unlikable and rooting for the monster are both missing the point of horror. Why should you be scared of something you're actually hoping to happen? This is sort of a inherent divisiveness within the genre. Horror fans want to be scared, but doesn't want it to come by way of hurting innocent likeable characters. Which is terribly ironic considering certain horror fans complain about the genre lacking likeable characters.
*** The disagreements over bleak and dark tone seems to be mostly a matter of personal taste than anything.
*** Same with having actual ghosts/demons/aliens etc..in the film. Some people think that's what makes a real horror film while others think it's a cheap gimmick.
** And whether or not to use humor and comedy. Does it add to the movie, and mood or destroys it?
** For the Literature medium there are those who prefer the short and simple stories to the 900 page Doorstops. Mostly because they think Horror stories are much more effective as short stories, as bigger books tends to drag.
** There's also a debate over perceived attitudes towards the genre. For instance on message boards there will be a fan who'll be like "Yaaay they're making Terror On Cliched Street part 20!", and another disgruntled one who'll be like "*ugh* Hollywood has run out of ideas". The latter thinking the former is everything that is wrong with horror today. While the former think that the latter group are a bunch of pretentious Jerkasses who think foreign horror is the best thing since indoor plumbing, and is taking the genre too seriously. While the latter fires back by saying they're the ones that are giving horror fans a "bad name" (and by extension the whole genre).
** People argue that if it doesn't have any supernatural/fantasy/sci-fi elements it's not a real horror film. Some think adding too much sci-fi and technobable ruins the genre, likely a microcosm of the Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane approach where they use science or sci-fi to explain away the paranormal/supernatural (which some see as a cop out). Same thing can be said for adding in action
*** In addition to the above is it a bad idea to try and explain everything in a horror story/plot. Or is it best to leave it mysterious and vague?, Or is that a WriterCopOut?
** Anytime a MaybeMagicMaybeMundane horror movie turns out to be RealAfterAll. Case in point The Last Exorcism.
** There's also accusations of people RunningTheAsylum for the worse, By keeping all of the arguably negative stuff around because they think it's the norm for the genre. Creating a horror version of Sci Fi Ghetto.
** Found Footage horror is very polarizing among horror fans. Regardless of how well made they might be.
** It doesn't help that the horror genre is subjective (and polarizing) to begin with.
* Speaking of horror genre, there seems to be a divide on how to make zombie films/books/shows, and what makes a good zombie story as oppose to a generic zombie story. Should they be humorous zombie killing action pieces? Or dramatic, thought provoking, Socio-Political commentary and or deep character studies?
** As mentioned in the 28 Days Later example, what does or does not constitute a proper cinema Zombie is up for big debate. Can Zombies be fast or does that fly in the face of what a Zombie should be? Are they mindless walking corpses with no goal other than to eat the living, or should they have a deeper level that allows them to form basic plans and organize? Are they caused by magic? toxic waste? a virus? Numerous fans will insist that changing a single element destroys the Zombie title.
* Combat robots, as seen in stuff like ''Series/BattleBots'' and ''Series/RobotWars'', have a split between fans of robots designed around damage and destruction and fans of robots designed around technique and manipulation. The former favor [[SpectacularSpinning full-body spinners, flywheel users, spinning drums]], and [[CarryABigStick hammer-bots]] whereas the latter prefer [[GrievousHarmWithABody lifters, trappers]], [[BareFistedMonk push-bots, and wedges]], with [[LauncherMove launchers]] somewhere in between (but generally well-liked by both parties, as these bots require finesse ''and'' create spectacle when they work as intended). The former group of fans want to see robots getting torn apart and ripped to shreds, and the latter group of fans like seeing skilled piloting used to control the tide of battle. Both groups tend to see the other as rather boring to watch, and hence there is little peace between them. It doesn't help matters that the winners of these competitions tend to form cycles between damage-based robots and technique-based robots.
* A FanworkBan can sometimes start one of these, between fans who support the author's decision and fans who lambast the author and/or defy the ban.
* Among fans of {{crossdress|er}}ing male characters (as well as real-life male crossdressers), there's a bit of debate over whether it's acceptable to call them "traps", stemming from an ages old meme about reacting to such a person with the {{memetic|Mutation}} [[Film/ReturnOfTheJedi "It's a trap!"]] line. Proponents think it's fine and people who complain are overreacting based on an irrelevant issue, opponents feel that it carries negative implications; specifically, the idea that a crossdressing man is deceitful, to say ''nothing'' about the term also being used to refer to UsefulNotes/{{trans|gender}}women which some feel that calling crossdressers "traps" already skirts too close to. Nearly ''any'' discussion of this topic between people with differing opinions will quickly degrade into mudslinging.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Hardware and Programming]]
* User-friendly Linux distributions such as Ubuntu vs. "power" distros such as Gentoo or Slackware.
** Ubuntu itself causes a bit of a broken base for the Debian crowd: should Debian be credited more or would that tarnish Debian's reputation as rock solid? And then there's Canonical's recent UI antics, like rearranging buttons on the title bar or nuking the [[strike:system tray]] [[InsistentTerminology notification area]](the fact that they give the latter drifting from Microsoft's original vision as one of their reasons doesn't help). And then there's the the debate over whether GNU's insistence on "GNU/Linux" is mere egotism or justified.
* The Great Editor War, a long and epic battle between the users of Emacs and Vi. The battle between these two programming editors has gone on longer than the Mac vs. PC debate. The rivalry has long been joked about: even the normally bitter Richard Stallman has poked fun at the debate, declaring himself head of the "Church of Emacs" declaring war on the "Cult of Vi."
* Android has this in many different ways:
** Rooted[[note]]Granting superuser/admin privileges to the user, a concept familiar to *nix users[[/note]] or non-rooted? Proponents of rooting feel that it opens up many new options for tailoring one's Android experience, while opponents are concerned that rooted phones are more vulnerable to security exploits than non-rooted ones.
** Official Android versions or custom ones?
* iOS (including iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch):
** Like with rooting above, jailbreaking is a point of contention among users. Some enjoy the extended capabilities of a jailbroken phone, while others feel that it's a bricked phone or an exploited phone waiting to happen.
** iOS 7 and up vs. earlier versions. There are those who won't upgrade from iOS 6 or earlier, primarily because of the visual style of later versions, while others either enjoy the aesthetic or feel that it's too small of an issue to be concerned about.
** A huge one exists over rumors that the iPhone 7 won't have the 3.5-mm audio jack. Some users are angry enough about it that they intend to [[ScrewThisImOuttaHere bail out of Apple's ecosystem]], others think that detractors are overreacting and that the problem can be easily solved with a 3.5mm-to-Lightning adapter (which itself has the rebuttal that it prevents listening to audio and charging at the same time).
* Windows 8. Whereas certain previous versions of Windows got perfectly justified hate for performance and compatibility problems, 8 has none of those. However opinions on the radically updated UI are either "Greatest Windows Ever" or "The New Vista". No in between.
** Windows 10 is either "[[SurprisinglyImprovedSequel Windows 8 but with less suck]] and free[[note]]for the first year of 10's release[[/note]]" or [[UnwantedAssistance "that upgrade that Microsoft kept shoving down my throat so now I hate it so much"]].
* The ''goto'' statement in programming languages. Does using it automatically make you a lazy/stingy/paranoid person with no regards for clean code? Or are the ones who avoid it ''"quiche eaters"'' who are just wannabes who can never be a ''real programmer'' and are idiotically forfeiting their job security to other ''"quiche eaters"''?
* Style guides for programming can be a highly contentious issue for a number of reasons.
** How many spaces should each indentation take up? Most people generally argue for either two spaces or four, but other choices are not unheard of.
** Should indentation use tabs or spaces? The former allows everyone to use their preferred indentation size, therefore negating the above debate, but the latter guarantees that alignment stays consistent across all machines.
** For languages that use curly brackets, where do you place the brackets? This one gets particularly messy since many of the formally-codified styles have different standards for different types of blocks (e.g. functions versus loops).
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Technology and Weapons]]
* [[CoolVsAwesome Boeing vs Airbus]] is a huge one in the aerospace industry world. The two companies are notable for possibly the bitterest and nastiest commercial rivalry in the world of manufacturing. It is exacerbated by various factors, such as Airbus's "Reimbursable Launch Investment" from EU governments (loans that have to be paid back at generous rates of interest, plus royalties if the aircraft is a success) and the US government's effective subsidizing of Boeing with pork barrel military contracts (and in a few cases free money), which were the subject of the world's largest trade dispute ever during 2005-2012, which ultimately ended with a World Trade Organisation decision in Airbus's favor. The fallout is still settling, although there are signs that the US and Boeing have tried to get around the decision, and the EU is threatening to place trade sanctions of ''$19 billion'' on Boeing. Add lots of internet UsefulNotes/MisplacedNationalism (Americans want red-blooded American planes whose wives make them apple pie and who take their kids to baseball practice, not cappucino-drinking European commie planes with bad teeth and who spend their time looking at modern art galleries, [[NotSoDifferent and vice-versa]]) and the thing can get very nasty on enthusiast forums. It also reaches the pilots too - older pilots who were weaned on Boeing products before Airbus hacked out its market share in TheNineties prefer their old friends, but younger pilots prefer Airbuses because they are easier to fly and because of their standardized cockpit layouts a pilot can qualify on one and have done most of the work for all the others.
** Similar case happens with so called [[UsefulNotes/{{Capitalism}} NewSpace]] and [[UsefulNotes/{{NASA}} OldSpace]]. [=NewSpace=] believes with the advances of private spaceflight and privately funded science ventures NASA should be abolished, while [=OldSpace=] believes private ventures will fall into greed and unable to produce science results truthfully. With success by [=SpaceX=] and the increasingly unlikelihood of SLS and JWST being actually operational with '''billions''' of dollar already spend, [=NewSpace=] is gaining ground. However, since both are silence minorities against the American public, they are unable to change anything in Congress, which is gearing toward funneling pork barrels to Boeing, Lockhart Martin and ATK while trying to abolish NASA.
* Porsche cars. Every single time a new model line is introduced it divides the owners/fan base. This happened when the Cayenne SUV came out, before that it was old school air-cooled 911 fans incensed at the new water-cooled 911, universally the 911 fans are putting down anything not-911 and getting a similar treatment from non-911 fans, and way back in the sixties there was the now familiar cry of "It's not a real Porsche!" when Porsche made their first major model change, introducing the 911 to replace the 356 model.
** Car companies can fall victim to this. General Motors is a very good example, being essentially the automotive equivalent of Franchise/SonicTheHedgehog. Pontiac's dead? Good riddance, or is is ruined forever? Cadillac having front-wheel-drive cars? Acceptable or not?
* AK-47 vs. M-16 for assault rifle people. The youtube videos have huge numbers of comments, and that's just the beginning.
** To ~93% percent of the participants on both sides, the AK-74 is just an academic term, and the AK-100 series doesn't even exist. To the AK side, the M-16 never got upgraded, or cleaning kits, or any sort of improvement at all. To the M-16 side, the AK is so innacurate that the safest place to be when it is fired is directly in front of the muzzle, and they refuse to even touch Kalashnikovs, or even discuss the fact that certain members of the AK-100 family come in the same caliber as their beloved M-16's. Then the AK fanbase assumes that an M-16 will always jam, no matter what, and that the small caliber rounds can only kill you if you are shot 10 times, or if you bleed out on the ground for a couple minutes, and wooe betide you should you either take a third option or say that you like both. [[note]] Basically, each side looks at the other gun as it was when first issued in Vietnam, ignoring improvements during the conflict, let alone the many decades since. [[/note]] However, depending on the setting, your mileage may vary significantly.
** Even more vicious is the infighting between diferent members and factions of each camp. The M-16 people argue over mods and manufacturers. The AK people go on over the 74's 5.45X39 round vs. the old 7.62 and whether or not it was a good idea.
*** Nowadays this have eased somewhat, with AK's availability in almost any caliber imagined. People still argue which one is better, though.
*** Don't forget country of manufacture (particularly the cheaper ones like Romanians are very divisive), importer, chromed vs non-chromed, and stamped vs. milled.
* In handguns, there's the debates about revolvers versus pistols. The revolver camp goes on about the low caliber ammunition used by pistols and how unreliable they are. The pistol camp goes on about how revolvers are antiquated and that magnum catriges are just silly.
** Don't even get started on the M9 vs. M1911 debate, or for that matter, any sort of debate about which makes a better bullet: a small, fast cartidge that tumbles through flesh, or a big heavy slug that wrecks whatever it hits.
** Any brand of pistol vs. another brand of pistol. One common example (involving the two biggest selling types of firearms) is Glock "Safe Action" vs 1911-style "cocked and locked" carry.
* Swords are not immune to this. Probably the deepest divide is about the katana: [[KatanasAreJustBetter are they the greatest sword ever made, perfectly designed by master craftsmen and capable of outclassing any Western design]]? [[JokeItem Or are they completely worthless hunks of glorified pig iron, doomed to shatter like glass and get the wielder killed the moment they come into contact with a good European longsword, overrated by]] [[OccidentalOtaku weeaboos desperate to justify their love of all things Japanese]]? [[TakeAThirdOption Or are they the best possible response to the poor quality of Japanese iron ore?]]
* [[ThoseWackyNazis World War 2 German weapons and vehicles]]. [[StupidJetpackHitler Hyper-advanced designs that paved the way for all modern military weapons, could beat anything the Allies made three ways to sunday and would have let the Nazis win the war had they just been produced enough/Hitler not been so crazy]], or [[AwesomeYetImpractical overly-complex and ridiculously expensive designs that while using some innovative features were not at all reliable and have been blown out of proportion by history]]. Expect arguments to veer into the territory of ArtisticLicenseHistory and GodwinsLaw.
* In the earth sciences, there's a pretty stark divide between earth scientists in the private sector, who generally view the planet as a resource to be utilized, and earth scientists in academia who tend to view the planet as a wonder to be conserved.
* In 2013, Apple massively changed the interface of its iOS software, replacing the then-iconic pseudo-3D designs with a much flatter appearance. The public was largely divided on whether it was a refreshing modernization or an ugly, user-unfriendly gimmick, and though most people have forgotten about the disagreement by now, it doesn't seem like it will ever totally die down as long as Apple keeps the same basic design language.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Other Other]]
* Video game magazines aren't safe from this either. ''Magazine/NintendoPower'' got the most flack since many anti Nintendo fans would always claim that the magazine was "biased" towards its own first party games by giving them high scores. When ''Nintendo Power'' was outsourced to another publisher, the staff slightly changed. People claimed Nintendo Power was biased up until the very end, but would somehow agree with them if the magazine gave any game an 8 or less. Then, of course, you had people who thought the reviews were just fine and got into {{Flame War}}s against those who bashed the magazine.
* What should be considered Porn or "nude/erotic art"... [[TakeAThirdOption or both]]. If there's a line, where should the distinction be drawn? Keep in mind erotic art can be very pornographic as well. In fact the line is so blurred some think there isn't a difference anymore.
** There's actually a website that lets you be the judge regarding some of the pictures they show you.
* Black and white vs colour photography: one side points to the impact of monochrome, and questions why any photographer worth the name would want to use anything else; the other side points to the fact that we see in colour, and that the technical issues with colour fidelity and dynamic range were resolved years ago.
* Talking about certain contestants on ''Series/ThePriceIsRight'' that make bids that just says "I'm only making this bid to get attention", such as making a $2,000,000 bid, bids that are $420, or any bid whose last two numbers are 69. Fans of the show can't seem to decide whether or not the silly bids doesn't do anyone any harm or if it robs other people a spot on contestant's row because the idiot contestant wanted to get attention to themselves and not play the game seriously.
* Two such instances pop up in the tenth chapter of the crossover between ''Franchise/LyricalNanoha'' and ''Anime/SailorMoon'', ''Fanfic/WhiteDevilOfTheMoon'', and surprisingly, they are unrelated to [[spoiler:Nanoha and Fate getting together]]
** Was Nanoha justified in harshly calling the Queen out on how she raised Serenity? Additionally, was this in character for Nanoha, who is more responsible than Usagi or Serenity, or was this contrary to someone who would "befriend" her enemies?
** Vivio defeating Picoha (a character based off of Usagi's future daughter Chibi-Usa) and causing her and her alternate timeline to disappear was also a controversial action, especially since it was essentially killing her. WordOfGod has clarified, however, that Picoha was the aggressor, attacking without stating her intent, and Vivio tried to defeat her non-lethally, without knowing what would happen to her.
* Analytic vs. continental philosophy.
** Moral Philosophy/Ethics in general. Okay, the debate about what's morally right and wrong is going to be cause for a lot of arguments in near enough every academic and professional field, but in philosophy, it's divided even more significantly among followers of different schools of ethical thought. Is the best/most accurate theory a consequentialist one like utilitarianism, holding that the consequences of an action dictate whether it's right? A deontological one, holding that the intentions dictate how ethical an action is? Virtue Ethics based on ideals and personalities? Various other theories based on everything from social/political theories to attempts at scientific ones? And then there's the religious side of things and the various churches and groups making up the likes of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and what they each say are morally right and wrong...
* In tattoo circles, stick n' poke tattoos (tattoos done with a singular needle by people that aren't tattoo artists): are they unsanitary and the people that get them idiots, or are they an important part of tattoo culture and the people against them are snobs?
* In psychiatry, should patients be treated with drugs or counseling? This one is particularly nasty, and is at the heart of the controversy over the DSM-V.
** There is also some debate over whether therapy must be validated/evidence-based, like like cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy and family-based treatment, with some saying that only relying on things that have been proven to actually work is unrealistic for a real world, clinical setting, and that the view ignores the value of experience/anecdotes, and the other side insisting that mental health practitioners act like health professionals. It doesn't help that the group against evidence-based-psychology is mainly made up of therapists, who have lower accreditation requirements than psychologist and psychiatrists, and that the evidence-based camp also says that practitioners should make their success rates available so potential clients can judge what's worth paying for.
* Descriptivism vs. prescriptivism in spelling and grammar. Do language experts ''prescribe'' "correct" spelling and grammar, or merely ''describe'' spelling and grammar as it's actually used? The Descriptivists pretty much won that one, but that only leads to further splits. When does a grammatical construction or alternate spelling pass from the vernacular to the "standard"? How many people need to make a certain mistake before it stops being a mistake and starts being the new accepted usage? Should etymology figure into these decisions? What about clarity? These debates have been raging since the days of [[FandomRivalry Samuel Johnson and Daniel Webster]].
* In statistics, there are several fairly exotic types of probability that take a great amount of time to understand and practice, and have fairly unusual and strict assumptions that must be met, leading to debates as to whether they are of any value to practicing statisticians.
* Bev Francis triggered one for female UsefulNotes/{{bodybuilding}} as a contestant in Miss Olympia 1991. She weighed in at ''160'' pounds (She's 5-foot-5, fyi). Previously, no other female contestant had ever been that muscular. She came in at second place, having lost by a single point and was leading after two rounds, only to be overtaken in the concluding rounds. The debate of "How much muscle on a woman is too much?” has raged ever since.
* Cosplay:
** Making one's own costumes vs. commissioning or ordering them. Some feel that craftsmanship is a very vital element of cosplay, while others find that it's too much extra effort just to have a pretty costume and prefer to focus on the modeling aspect of it.
** [[CasualCompetitiveConflict Cosplaying simply for recreation vs cosplaying for competition or as a profession]].
** Whether one should match the body type of the character they're cosplaying. Those who say it should think it's aesthetically unpleasant at best and NauseaFuel at worst to see, for example, a chubby [[Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann Yoko Littner]] or a non-muscular [[Anime/KillLaKill Ira Gamagoori]]. Others point out that they should be able to cosplay whoever they please and that some people simply aren't able to match their characters' physique even if they do put their efforts into it, especially if height is the main issue (going to chubby to lean or vice versa can be done with a lot of time and dedication, but losing or gaining anything more than one inch as an adult with a fully-developed skeleton is straight up impossible). In fact, people of the former opinion have deterred many people from cosplaying certain characters that they want to cosplay, out of fear not just of negative reception but outright insults and harassments.
** Skin tone is an even more touchy topic. Some people insist that people should only cosplay characters of their race, or who at least [[AmbiguouslyBrown seem to be]]. White people playing Asian characters is sometimes allowed in these debates because the characters '[[{{mukokuseki}} don't look Asian]]' though it's not unknown to be against that. Others consider this racist and you should be able to cosplay whomever you want.
** Whether light skinned people can darken their skin for cosplay is ''very'' controversial; some see it as simply trying to replicate a character, others feel that it's too evocative of {{Blackface}} for comfort.
** The regulation of weapon props at conventions, ''especially'' gun props, is a very hot topic, especially in jurisdictions where gun control is a big deal. Those who push for stricter regulations or outright bans argue that it's better to play it safe especially since most cops are unlikely to know about the series people cosplay and thus may assume anything that looks like a real gun is a real gun because of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Others don't like working on fancy weapon props, being sure to make them distinguishable from real weapons, only to be told by con ops that they can't have that on the convention grounds. This is especially a temper-breaker argument in the United States, as the whole weapon prop debate goes hand-in-hand with the Second Amendment/gun rights debate.
* Pretty much anything and everything about animal welfare and animal rearing is up in the air. Many things are outright FlameBait:
** Physically altering your pets. Declawing, debarking, cropping ears, docking tails, etc. Understandable or horrible abuse?
** 'Designer dogs' such as "Labradoodles" or "Yorkie Poos". Are they okay to breed or not? Themes of dog overpopulation, backyard breeders, and puppy mills come into play. Do any of them have potential as genuine breeds? Are their nicknames cute or should they be treated like normal mutts?
** Whether it's humane to feed your snakes live prey. It can be very dangerous to your pet and some have moral dilemmas about putting the prey in a situation where escape is literally impossible (unless they kill the snake, which does occur).
** The best diet for any species of pet. The best brands, vegetarian cats or dogs, and whether you should make your own food.
** Dog breeds in general. Other species like cats, fish, and horses have similar debates but dogs are by far the most discussed. With documentaries like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" many have come to question many breeds. Pugs, Border Collies, Basset Hounds, Bull Terriers, and German Shepherds are some of the most commonly debated. Working bred dogs vs Show dogs, whether dog breeds are an outdated and irrelevant concept, how to fix breeds faults, whether certain breeds should become extinct, whether certain breeds are dangerous, etc
** Dog leashes. Should you use a harness, let them walk freely, or use their collar?
** The topic of 'outside cats' within the cat community. On the opposing side it's considered abusive, neglectful, bad for the environment, and dangerous for the pets. On the other side people think it's neglectful to keep your cats indoors 24/7. How to 'deal' with outside cats and feral cats is even more touchy. Whether neutering and releasing does any good, and whether feral cats are pests who should be killed, are hot topics.
** Which exotic pets are okay to own differs from person to person
** How to treat livestock.
** How should certain animal breeds look. This usually, but not always, overlaps with the aforementioned issues on health in dog breeding. For example, according to breed standards there is only one type of Chihuahua: the small "apple headed" variety. Many who own "deer headed" Chihuahuas insist that they are "better" and healthier than "apple headed" ones (due to their larger size and the fact that their heads are completely fused). Many Chihuahua purists, especially breeders, however believe that "deer headed" Chihuahuas are ill-bred and improper. Sometimes this whole issue goes so far that it even affects breeding. For example, some Bull Terrier breeders are trying to backbreed the older non-egg headed type back and some Basset Hound breeders are trying to breed their dogs to have less wrinkles and longer legs. To many other breeders this is terrible and the breeds should be kept as is.
* Vegetarians and the different variations.
** Veganism vs Vegetarianism is the most common debate. Vegetarians eat eggs and dairy products while vegans do not. The animal welfare aspects of eggs and milk are commonly debated, as are how healthy or dangerous being vegan is.
** Raw veganism is notoriously controversial. Some jump up and down praising it while others find it unhealthy.
** People who are vegetarian for health vs those who are vegetarian for animal welfare or animal rights.
** Is being vegan a "lifestyle" or is it simply food related? Whether vegans can wear leather, visit zoos, and the like is a touchy topic.
** Asking whether it's safe to raise a child vegetarian or especially vegan is asking for trouble. What age it's okay to be vegetarian also depends. Some parents, especially non-veg ones, say they wouldn't let their kids be vegetarian until they're eighteen while others are okay with having a vegetarian teen. Whether elementary or junior high schooler should be allowed to become vegetarian is more debatable though.
* Among cruise fans, private balconies are a highly contested design element. Some people won't stay in a suite without them but others think they are ugly, windy, and would prefer bigger suites with windows instead. The issue tends to represent the two different groups that cruises market to, the deal seeker and the ocean liner enthusiast. The deal seeker wants a cruise ship with amenities, including things like water slides, a surfing pool, and of course private balconies. The ocean liner enthusiast cares more about the look of the ship and how well fitted out her public spaces are and generally don't show interest in any features you couldn't find on the ''Titanic''.
%%* Within miniature {{Wargaming}} communities, metal vs plastic miniatures.
%%* Among editors, writers, and English teachers, the Oxford comma is SeriousBusiness.
* Among fans of so-called hobbyist board games, ''Monopoly'' is ''extremely'' contentious. Many board game enthusiasts hate Monopoly with a burning passion, so much so that some might call it TheScrappy of board games, and even argue that its reputation for being drawn-out and cutthroat outright damages the reputation of board games as a whole and makes people unwilling to try "modern" board games. However, other board gamers argue that Monopoly itself is perfectly fine--the problem is that everyone learns to play it incorrectly, and that the game has been stuffed full of house rules that are counterproductive to the way the game is ''meant'' to be played. Mentioning the game anywhere around board gamers invariably leads to a debate on the game's merits or lack thereof.
[[/folder]]
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 10,11 (click to see context) :
** Which era had the better bumpers; the Powerhouse era or the CN City era?
** Was Creator/{{Boomerang}} getting rid of most of their classic cartoons and moving them to their streaming service in 2017 a good or a bad idea? Similarly, was getting rid of the old toy bumpers a good or bad idea?
** Was Creator/{{Boomerang}} getting rid of most of their classic cartoons and moving them to their streaming service in 2017 a good or a bad idea? Similarly, was getting rid of the old toy bumpers a good or bad idea?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Deleting ROCEJ potholes on account of basically being Shmuck Bait.
Changed line(s) 109 (click to see context) from:
** The regulation of weapon props at conventions, ''especially'' gun props, is a very hot topic, especially in jurisdictions where gun control is a big deal. Those who push for stricter regulations or outright bans argue that it's better to play it safe especially since most cops are unlikely to know about the series people cosplay and thus may assume anything that looks like a real gun is a real gun because of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Others don't like working on fancy weapon props, being sure to make them distinguishable from real weapons, only to be told by con ops that they can't have that on the convention grounds. This is especially a temper-breaker argument in the United States, as the whole weapon prop debate goes hand-in-hand with the Second Amendment, and [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we'll leave it at that]].
to:
** The regulation of weapon props at conventions, ''especially'' gun props, is a very hot topic, especially in jurisdictions where gun control is a big deal. Those who push for stricter regulations or outright bans argue that it's better to play it safe especially since most cops are unlikely to know about the series people cosplay and thus may assume anything that looks like a real gun is a real gun because of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Others don't like working on fancy weapon props, being sure to make them distinguishable from real weapons, only to be told by con ops that they can't have that on the convention grounds. This is especially a temper-breaker argument in the United States, as the whole weapon prop debate goes hand-in-hand with the Second Amendment, and [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we'll leave it at that]].Amendment/gun rights debate.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Among fans of so-called hobbyist board games, ''Monopoly'' is ''extremely'' contentious. Many board game enthusiasts hate Monopoly with a burning passion, so much so that some might call it TheScrappy of board games, and even argue that its reputation for being drawn-out and cutthroat outright damages the reputation of board games as a whole and makes people unwilling to try "modern" board games. However, other board gamers argue that Monopoly itself is perfectly fine--the problem is that everyone learns to play it incorrectly, and that the game has been stuffed full of house rules that are counterproductive to the way the game is ''meant'' to be played. Mentioning the game anywhere around board gamers invariably leads to a debate on the game's merits or lack thereof.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Which era had the better bumpers; the Powerhouse era or the CN City era?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* Creator/DisneyChannel and Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} have the cartoons vs Live Action debate. People tend to side with the cartoons for both channels, but pretty much everyone agrees that Creator/CartoonNetwork abandoning animation was a bad idea.
to:
* Creator/DisneyChannel and Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} have the cartoons vs Live Action debate. People tend to side with the cartoons for both channels, but pretty much everyone agrees that Creator/CartoonNetwork [[NetworkDecay abandoning animation animation]] was a bad idea.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
* Creator/CartoonNetwork is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it [[GrowingTheBeard really hit its stride]] with the Powerhouse era and [[SeasonalRot went to hell]] in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the Advertising/{{CN City}} era and started to decline in 2007 with the Fall era, or got bad in 2009 with the debut of CN Real. Another huge debate is if it's still sucking to this day, or it got [[WinBACKTheCrowd a whole lot better]] in 2010, and continues to get better.
to:
* Creator/CartoonNetwork is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it [[GrowingTheBeard really hit its stride]] with the Powerhouse era and [[SeasonalRot went to hell]] in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the Advertising/{{CN City}} era and started to decline in 2007 with the Fall era, or got bad in 2009 with the debut of Creator/CNReal. Others will say it hit its stride with the Powerhouse era, declined, but not by a considerable margin, in the CN City era, fully cemented into its DorkAge with the Fall era and reached its nadir in 2009 with the debut of CN Real. Another huge debate is if it's still sucking to this day, or it got [[WinBACKTheCrowd a whole lot better]] in 2010, and continues to get better.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
** Was Creator/{{Boomerang}} getting rid of most of their classic cartoons and moving them to their streaming service in 2017 a good or a bad idea? Similarly, was getting rid of the old toy bumpers a good or bad idea.
to:
** Was Creator/{{Boomerang}} getting rid of most of their classic cartoons and moving them to their streaming service in 2017 a good or a bad idea? Similarly, was getting rid of the old toy bumpers a good or bad idea.idea?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
* Creator/CartoonNetwork is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it [[GrowingTheBeard really hit its stride]] with the Powerhouse era and [[SeasonalRot went to hell]] in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the Advertising/{{CN City}} era and started to decline in 2007 with the yes era, or got bad in 2009 with the debut of CN Real. Another huge debate is if it's still sucking to this day, or it got [[WinBACKTheCrowd a whole lot better]] in 2010, and continues to get better.
to:
* Creator/CartoonNetwork is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it [[GrowingTheBeard really hit its stride]] with the Powerhouse era and [[SeasonalRot went to hell]] in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the Advertising/{{CN City}} era and started to decline in 2007 with the yes Fall era, or got bad in 2009 with the debut of CN Real. Another huge debate is if it's still sucking to this day, or it got [[WinBACKTheCrowd a whole lot better]] in 2010, and continues to get better.
** Was Creator/{{Boomerang}} getting rid of most of their classic cartoons and moving them to their streaming service in 2017 a good or a bad idea? Similarly, was getting rid of the old toy bumpers a good or bad idea.
** Was Creator/{{Boomerang}} getting rid of most of their classic cartoons and moving them to their streaming service in 2017 a good or a bad idea? Similarly, was getting rid of the old toy bumpers a good or bad idea.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Complainy sinkhole to a page that's being cut.
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
** There is another Zombie-related issue breaking up the fans as well, namely on the usefulness of the .22 caliber round against a zombie. Ever since Max Brooks came out with ''Literature/TheZombieSurvivalGuide'', there has been an ongoing argument on the rounds effectiveness of destroying the brain of a zombie. Proponents argue it would bounce around inside of the skull and it's more common than dirt. Detractors say there is no guarantee that it will even penetrate the skull or do that brain-destroying damage (for what it's worth, [[BulletsDoNotWorkThatWay reality and the laws of physics can vouch that .22 rounds don't repeatedly pinball around inside the skulls of the living]]). Some have gone so far to say that the .22 is the ''only'' bullet that would be effective at stopping a zombie and all other rounds are less useful or just plain useless.
to:
** There is another Zombie-related issue breaking up the fans as well, namely on the usefulness of the .22 caliber round against a zombie. Ever since Max Brooks came out with ''Literature/TheZombieSurvivalGuide'', there has been an ongoing argument on the rounds effectiveness of destroying the brain of a zombie. Proponents argue it would bounce around inside of the skull and it's more common than dirt. Detractors say there is no guarantee that it will even penetrate the skull or do that brain-destroying damage (for what it's worth, [[BulletsDoNotWorkThatWay reality and the laws of physics can vouch that .22 rounds don't repeatedly pinball around inside the skulls of the living]]).living). Some have gone so far to say that the .22 is the ''only'' bullet that would be effective at stopping a zombie and all other rounds are less useful or just plain useless.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:
* Combat robots, as seen in stuff like ''Series/BattleBots'' and ''Series/RobotWars'', have a split between fans of robots designed around damage and destruction and fans of robots designed around technique and manipulation. The former favor [[EverythingsBetterWithSpinning full-body spinners, flywheel users, spinning drums]], and [[CarryABigStick hammer-bots]] whereas the latter prefer [[GrievousHarmWithABody lifters, trappers]], [[BareFistedMonk push-bots, and wedges]], with [[LauncherMove launchers]] somewhere in between (but generally well-liked by both parties, as these bots require finesse ''and'' create spectacle when they work as intended). The former group of fans want to see robots getting torn apart and ripped to shreds, and the latter group of fans like seeing skilled piloting used to control the tide of battle. Both groups tend to see the other as rather boring to watch, and hence there is little peace between them. It doesn't help matters that the winners of these competitions tend to form cycles between damage-based robots and technique-based robots.
to:
* Combat robots, as seen in stuff like ''Series/BattleBots'' and ''Series/RobotWars'', have a split between fans of robots designed around damage and destruction and fans of robots designed around technique and manipulation. The former favor [[EverythingsBetterWithSpinning [[SpectacularSpinning full-body spinners, flywheel users, spinning drums]], and [[CarryABigStick hammer-bots]] whereas the latter prefer [[GrievousHarmWithABody lifters, trappers]], [[BareFistedMonk push-bots, and wedges]], with [[LauncherMove launchers]] somewhere in between (but generally well-liked by both parties, as these bots require finesse ''and'' create spectacle when they work as intended). The former group of fans want to see robots getting torn apart and ripped to shreds, and the latter group of fans like seeing skilled piloting used to control the tide of battle. Both groups tend to see the other as rather boring to watch, and hence there is little peace between them. It doesn't help matters that the winners of these competitions tend to form cycles between damage-based robots and technique-based robots.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* In 2013, Apple massively changed the interface of its iOS software, replacing the then-iconic pseudo-3D designs with a much flatter appearance. The public was largely divided on whether it was a refreshing modernization or an ugly, user-unfriendly gimmick, and though most people have forgotten about the disagreement by now, it doesn't seem like it will ever totally die down as long as Apple keeps the same basic design language.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 106 (click to see context) from:
** The regulation of weapon props at conventions, ''especially'' gun props, is a very hot topic, especially in jurisdictions where gun control is a big deal. Those who push for stricter regulations or outright bans argue that it's better to play it safe especially since most cops are unlikely to know about the series people cosplay and thus may assume anything that looks like a real gun is a real gun because of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Others don't like working on fancy weapon props, being sure to make them distinguishable from real weapons, only to be told by con ops that they can't have that on the convention grounds. This is especially a temper-breaker argument in the United States, as the whole weapon prop debate goes hand-in-hand with the Second Amendment, and [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we'll leave it at that]].
to:
** The regulation of weapon props at conventions, ''especially'' gun props, is a very hot topic, especially in jurisdictions where gun control is a big deal. Those who push for stricter regulations or outright bans argue that it's better to play it safe especially since most cops are unlikely to know about the series people cosplay and thus may assume anything that looks like a real gun is a real gun because of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Others don't like working on fancy weapon props, being sure to make them distinguishable from real weapons, only to be told by con ops that they can't have that on the convention grounds. This is especially a temper-breaker argument in the United States, as the whole weapon prop debate goes hand-in-hand with the Second Amendment, and [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we'll leave it at that]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I merged the two examples, because they both discus differing viewpoints, and I deleted that third sub-bullet because it was {{Natter}].
Changed line(s) 18,20 (click to see context) from:
** Website/{{Cracked}} discuses why the ZombieApocalypse [[http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html will fail]]
** Website/{{Cracked}} discuses why the ZombieApocalypse [[http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html could succeed]]
*** To be fair the second article discuss how the zombie can be created and the first one how it will fail quickly and they are perfectly compatible with each other.
** Website/{{Cracked}} discuses why the ZombieApocalypse [[http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html could succeed]]
*** To be fair the second article discuss how the zombie can be created and the first one how it will fail quickly and they are perfectly compatible with each other.
to:
** Website/{{Cracked}} discuses discussed why the ZombieApocalypse [[http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html will fail]]
** Website/{{Cracked}} discuses why the ZombieApocalypsefail]] and how it [[http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html could succeed]]
*** To be fair the second article discuss how the zombie can be created and the first one how it will fail quickly and they are perfectly compatible with each other.succeed]]
** Website/{{Cracked}} discuses why the ZombieApocalypse
*** To be fair the second article discuss how the zombie can be created and the first one how it will fail quickly and they are perfectly compatible with each other.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
T Rex has recently been found to have leathery skin
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
* The [[ScienceMarchesOn constantly changing image of]] dinosaurs often sparks debates. Old-school dinosaur geeks that grew up in the ''Franchise/JurassicPark''-era display a fierce harshness towards the scientifically now-accepted fact that, for example, raptors and [[TyrannosaurusRex T. rex]] would have been feathered or at least fuzzy, and criticize works that depict dinosaurs as realistic animals instead of reptilian movie-monsters. Meanwhile hard-core paleontology fans, knowing that the fossil evidence clearly supports their side, simply dismiss these people (often rudely). Even among them, though, there is a serious break when it comes to how close works about dinosaurs (and other prehistoric creatures) should stay to the known facts. Is it okay for non-scientific movies to still depict [[RaptorAttack raptors with scales]], or unacceptable? Should artists only draw what we can reliably infer from the fossils, or is wild speculation okay as long as it doesn't contradict the evidence? Arguments frequently occur because many paleontologists and general paleo-nerds treat their obsession as very SeriousBusiness, and don't want mass-media misrepresenting their work.
to:
* The [[ScienceMarchesOn constantly changing image of]] dinosaurs often sparks debates. Old-school dinosaur geeks that grew up in the ''Franchise/JurassicPark''-era display a fierce harshness towards the scientifically now-accepted fact that, for example, raptors and [[TyrannosaurusRex T. rex]] would have been feathered or at least fuzzy, and criticize works that depict dinosaurs as realistic animals instead of reptilian movie-monsters. Meanwhile hard-core paleontology fans, knowing that the fossil evidence clearly supports their side, simply dismiss these people (often rudely). Even among them, though, there is a serious break when it comes to how close works about dinosaurs (and other prehistoric creatures) should stay to the known facts. Is it okay for non-scientific movies to still depict [[RaptorAttack raptors with scales]], or unacceptable? Should artists only draw what we can reliably infer from the fossils, or is wild speculation okay as long as it doesn't contradict the evidence? Arguments frequently occur because many paleontologists and general paleo-nerds treat their obsession as very SeriousBusiness, and don't want mass-media misrepresenting their work.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Style guides for programming can be a highly contentious issue for a number of reasons.
** How many spaces should each indentation take up? Most people generally argue for either two spaces or four, but other choices are not unheard of.
** Should indentation use tabs or spaces? The former allows everyone to use their preferred indentation size, therefore negating the above debate, but the latter guarantees that alignment stays consistent across all machines.
** For languages that use curly brackets, where do you place the brackets? This one gets particularly messy since many of the formally-codified styles have different standards for different types of blocks (e.g. functions versus loops).
** How many spaces should each indentation take up? Most people generally argue for either two spaces or four, but other choices are not unheard of.
** Should indentation use tabs or spaces? The former allows everyone to use their preferred indentation size, therefore negating the above debate, but the latter guarantees that alignment stays consistent across all machines.
** For languages that use curly brackets, where do you place the brackets? This one gets particularly messy since many of the formally-codified styles have different standards for different types of blocks (e.g. functions versus loops).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 123,124 (click to see context) from:
* Within miniature {{Wargaming}} communities, metal vs plastic miniatures.
* Among editors, writers, and English teachers, the Oxford comma is SeriousBusiness.
* Among editors, writers, and English teachers, the Oxford comma is SeriousBusiness.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Among editors, writers, and English teachers, the Oxford comma is SeriousBusiness.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Unfortunate Implications requires citations. Putting the trope in the text of another trope's example is not a way around that requirement.
Changed line(s) 44 (click to see context) from:
* Among fans of {{crossdress|er}}ing male characters (as well as real-life male crossdressers), there's a bit of debate over whether it's acceptable to call them "traps", stemming from an ages old meme about reacting to such a person with the {{memetic|Mutation}} [[Film/ReturnOfTheJedi "It's a trap!"]] line. Proponents think it's fine and people who complain are overreacting based on an irrelevant issue, opponents feel that it carries UnfortunateImplications; specifically, the idea that a crossdressing man is deceitful, to say ''nothing'' about the term also being used to refer to UsefulNotes/{{trans|gender}}women which some feel that calling crossdressers "traps" already skirts too close to. Nearly ''any'' discussion of this topic between people with differing opinions will quickly degrade into mudslinging.
to:
* Among fans of {{crossdress|er}}ing male characters (as well as real-life male crossdressers), there's a bit of debate over whether it's acceptable to call them "traps", stemming from an ages old meme about reacting to such a person with the {{memetic|Mutation}} [[Film/ReturnOfTheJedi "It's a trap!"]] line. Proponents think it's fine and people who complain are overreacting based on an irrelevant issue, opponents feel that it carries UnfortunateImplications; negative implications; specifically, the idea that a crossdressing man is deceitful, to say ''nothing'' about the term also being used to refer to UsefulNotes/{{trans|gender}}women which some feel that calling crossdressers "traps" already skirts too close to. Nearly ''any'' discussion of this topic between people with differing opinions will quickly degrade into mudslinging.
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
* [[ThoseWackyNazis World War 2 German weapons and vehicles]]. [[StupidJetpackHitler Hyper-advanced designs that paved the way for all modern military weapons, could beat anything the Allies made three ways to sunday and would have let the Nazis win the war had they just been produced enough/Hitler not been so crazy]], or [[AwesomeYetImpractical overly-complex and ridiculously expensive designs that while using some innovative features were not at all reliable and have been blown out of proportion by history]]. Expect arguments to veer into the territory of ArtisticLicenseHistory, UnfortunateImplications and GodwinsLaw.
to:
* [[ThoseWackyNazis World War 2 German weapons and vehicles]]. [[StupidJetpackHitler Hyper-advanced designs that paved the way for all modern military weapons, could beat anything the Allies made three ways to sunday and would have let the Nazis win the war had they just been produced enough/Hitler not been so crazy]], or [[AwesomeYetImpractical overly-complex and ridiculously expensive designs that while using some innovative features were not at all reliable and have been blown out of proportion by history]]. Expect arguments to veer into the territory of ArtisticLicenseHistory, UnfortunateImplications ArtisticLicenseHistory and GodwinsLaw.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
It has been agreed here
that the political examples should be cut. They're too general to be considered fanbases.
that the political examples should be cut. They're too general to be considered fanbases.Deleted line(s) 63,72 (click to see context) :
[[folder:Politics]]
* Communists. There's the Marxists, the Trotskyists, the Stalinists or 'Marxist-Leninists' (a term some Trotskyists dispute), and the Maoists. Talk about broken fanbase.
** There are also some that criticise Leninism, believing that in order for communism to be achieved you need the working class to take power through mass action of class conscious workers organized democratically whereas Leninism advocates a vanguard of class conscious workers leading the rest of the population to communism. Those critical of Leninism for this include some anarchists and the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
** While we are speaking about Communism, there is a ''massive'' BrokenBase in Russia which cannot agree on whether it was good for the country or not, and if it was good, ''which'' Communist leader was good and which wasn't (it's usually Lenin vs Stalin). The same level of brokenness is present among the local anti-Communists, some of which think Tsarism was good and some think it was bad. The only thing everyone (but a small percentage of rich businessmen and perhaps some hipsters) agrees upon is that 1990s liberalism was bad.
* Napoleon lost a lot of admirers when he crowned himself Emperor, while also gaining new ones who had felt threatened by the prospect of democracy in France.
* Virtually every American president ever has had one, within their own Party or supporters. Either they're doing their job well enough or they're plain old incompetent, if not outright evil, and ''must'' be impeached for the greater good of mankind. Even the most revered and celebrated presidents nowadays had a lot of people passionately opposed to them and everything they did. Politics is like that sometimes. ([[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement Specific presidents have been left unmentioned to prevent flame wars.]])
** And, just to make things more confusing, often there will be a third group, upset that the president is being too moderate and isn't going far enough with what the far-whatever side of their party wants.
** We can, however, safely say that UsefulNotes/DwightDEisenhower has the least-broken base out of any president since UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, because he was exceptional in that (1) he was a national war hero; (2) was very much a moderate; and (3) was a Republican president in an era when the Republican Party's guiding philosophy was tempering the New Deal rather than reversing it. Thus he never attracted much serious hatred, even among Democrats or even the right wing of his own party.
[[/folder]]
* Communists. There's the Marxists, the Trotskyists, the Stalinists or 'Marxist-Leninists' (a term some Trotskyists dispute), and the Maoists. Talk about broken fanbase.
** There are also some that criticise Leninism, believing that in order for communism to be achieved you need the working class to take power through mass action of class conscious workers organized democratically whereas Leninism advocates a vanguard of class conscious workers leading the rest of the population to communism. Those critical of Leninism for this include some anarchists and the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
** While we are speaking about Communism, there is a ''massive'' BrokenBase in Russia which cannot agree on whether it was good for the country or not, and if it was good, ''which'' Communist leader was good and which wasn't (it's usually Lenin vs Stalin). The same level of brokenness is present among the local anti-Communists, some of which think Tsarism was good and some think it was bad. The only thing everyone (but a small percentage of rich businessmen and perhaps some hipsters) agrees upon is that 1990s liberalism was bad.
* Napoleon lost a lot of admirers when he crowned himself Emperor, while also gaining new ones who had felt threatened by the prospect of democracy in France.
* Virtually every American president ever has had one, within their own Party or supporters. Either they're doing their job well enough or they're plain old incompetent, if not outright evil, and ''must'' be impeached for the greater good of mankind. Even the most revered and celebrated presidents nowadays had a lot of people passionately opposed to them and everything they did. Politics is like that sometimes. ([[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement Specific presidents have been left unmentioned to prevent flame wars.]])
** And, just to make things more confusing, often there will be a third group, upset that the president is being too moderate and isn't going far enough with what the far-whatever side of their party wants.
** We can, however, safely say that UsefulNotes/DwightDEisenhower has the least-broken base out of any president since UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, because he was exceptional in that (1) he was a national war hero; (2) was very much a moderate; and (3) was a Republican president in an era when the Republican Party's guiding philosophy was tempering the New Deal rather than reversing it. Thus he never attracted much serious hatred, even among Democrats or even the right wing of his own party.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Removing a Flame Bait trope from the Eisenhower entry, as well as the oddly recursive Word Cruft at the end of it
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
** We can, however, safely say that UsefulNotes/DwightDEisenhower has the least-broken base out of any president since UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, because he was exceptional in that (1) he was a national war hero; (2) was very much a moderate; and (3) was a Republican president in an era when the Republican Party's guiding philosophy was tempering the New Deal rather than reversing it. Thus he never attracted a serious {{Hatedom}}, even among Democrats or even the right wing of his own party. Every other president though? See the main bullet point.
to:
** We can, however, safely say that UsefulNotes/DwightDEisenhower has the least-broken base out of any president since UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, because he was exceptional in that (1) he was a national war hero; (2) was very much a moderate; and (3) was a Republican president in an era when the Republican Party's guiding philosophy was tempering the New Deal rather than reversing it. Thus he never attracted a much serious {{Hatedom}}, hatred, even among Democrats or even the right wing of his own party. Every other president though? See the main bullet point.party.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
** Speaking of dark tones, A common problem in horror movies tends to be the fact some fans see the genre as nothing but DarknessInducedAudienceApathy. For example: The cast of potential victims is presented as a bunch of obnoxious jerks, and/or complete idiots, to the point where it's hard to feel bad for them when they finally start dying. Although for many [[CatharsisFactor that's part of the appeal]]. On the other hand, if the horror movie has a sympathetic family as a victim it could have another negative effect ranging from ShootTheDog to MoralEventHorizon (as far as the writers, creators etc crossing it...unfairly or not) to CrossesTheLineTwice. Which could also turn off certain groups of horror fans as well, which possibly explain the constant obnoxious jerk characters as a substitute, and villains constantly being prone to being DracoInLeatherPants. Horror films (especially mainstream American horror films) likes to be broadly appealing. You can't have a popular horror film where expies of ''Series/TheWaltons'' and [[Series/TheCosbyShow The Cosbys]] are brutally murdered by the Psycho/Demon/Werewolf/Vampire/Alien. Of course, while it might be too horrifying to subject, say, a charming, wholesome, likeable family to the events of a horror film, making potential victims unlikable and rooting for the monster are both ComicallyMissingThePoint of horror. Why should you be scared of something you're actually hoping to happen? This is sort of a inherent divisiveness within the genre. Horror fans want to be scared, but doesn't want it to come by way of hurting innocent likeable characters. Which is terribly ironic considering certain horror fans complain about the genre lacking likeable characters.
to:
** Speaking of dark tones, A common problem in horror movies tends to be the fact some fans see the genre as nothing but DarknessInducedAudienceApathy. For example: The cast of potential victims is presented as a bunch of obnoxious jerks, and/or complete idiots, to the point where it's hard to feel bad for them when they finally start dying. Although for many [[CatharsisFactor that's part of the appeal]]. On the other hand, if the horror movie has a sympathetic family as a victim it could have another negative effect ranging from ShootTheDog to MoralEventHorizon (as far as the writers, creators etc crossing it...unfairly or not) to CrossesTheLineTwice. Which could also turn off certain groups of horror fans as well, which possibly explain the constant obnoxious jerk characters as a substitute, and villains constantly being prone to being DracoInLeatherPants. Horror films (especially mainstream American horror films) likes to be broadly appealing. You can't have a popular horror film where expies of ''Series/TheWaltons'' and [[Series/TheCosbyShow The Cosbys]] are brutally murdered by the Psycho/Demon/Werewolf/Vampire/Alien. Of course, while it might be too horrifying to subject, say, a charming, wholesome, likeable family to the events of a horror film, making potential victims unlikable and rooting for the monster are both ComicallyMissingThePoint missing the point of horror. Why should you be scared of something you're actually hoping to happen? This is sort of a inherent divisiveness within the genre. Horror fans want to be scared, but doesn't want it to come by way of hurting innocent likeable characters. Which is terribly ironic considering certain horror fans complain about the genre lacking likeable characters.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 69 (click to see context) from:
** And, just to make things more confusing, often there will be a third group, upset that the president is being too moderate and isn't going far enough with what the far-whatever side of their party wants. These presidents ([[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement not naming names]]) may end up turning America into an UnpleasableFanbase.
to:
** And, just to make things more confusing, often there will be a third group, upset that the president is being too moderate and isn't going far enough with what the far-whatever side of their party wants. These presidents ([[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement not naming names]]) may end up turning America into an UnpleasableFanbase.
