If it exists, it likely has had a Broken Base at one point or another.
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 Misplaced Nationalism (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, 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 The Nineties 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 NewSpace and 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 Sonic the Hedgehog. 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. 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.
Fans of all things zombie have a broken base over whether or not Romero-style zombies can successfully over take the 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.
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.
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 The Zombie Survival Guide, 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.
What should be considered Porn or "nude/erotic art"... 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.
Video game magazines aren't safe from this either. Nintendo Power 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 Wars against those who bashed the magazine.
The whole trope was rather beautifully summed up in an advertising tagline for Glenn Beck's show on the Fox News Channel.
"Love him, or hate him, you just can't miss him."
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 system traynotification 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."
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.
A Fanwork Ban 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.
As far as their basic story concepts and plotlines go, at least. The Hero Factory sets seem to have been received well enough, especially the 2.0 figures.
And, oh, on a larger scale, there is the pro-Bionicle/Hero Factory and anti-Bionicle/Hero Factory "debate". Certain older members of the LEGO community seem to utterly hate these essentially action figure lines (and sometimes the people that like them as well), while their fans just want to be left alone to enjoy what they like.
With regards to the BIONICLE story, there is that ever-resurfacing argument over which "era" was best. Nostalgic fans tend to view the original saga-trilogy of 2001-2002-2003 as the most defining age, while others insist that the quasi-spiritualism made it cheesy, the stereotyped characters made it uninspired and the Strictly Formula plots just made it stagnate.
The 2004 Metru Nui era is when the biggest They Changed It, Now It Sucks shift took place — from a tropical island with lovable tribal people to a futuristic, high-tech city where angst and corruption abounded. The revelation that this was meant to be the "true" theme of BIONICLE turned many people away, but others liked it for its sudden avalanche of world-building and for the story being a bit more character-driven. 2005 isn't that popular, though.
Also, the latent Earth Drift tendencies of the later stories, organic characters replacing the biomechanical ones, is a heavily frowned-upon aspect for the older fans. Though, whether they remember or not, this has been part of the story since the beginning that just got more focus as the mysteries unveiled. Meanwhile, fan fiction writers at least now had semi-canon grounds for doing all kinds of things with these new, organic characters.
Related to the last point, the writer-enforced No Hugging, No Kissing rule is a frequently argued-over topic of the fandom.
Toy-wise, there was always someone complaining that the diminishing of action features made the figures boring, often going as far as to say "dumbed down", but others liked the improved articulation and the easier, faster construction.
Of the franchise's two main multi-console licensed games, the second, BIONICLE Heroes divides the fandom. On one hand, it's praised for its scope, straightforwardness, varied environments, the characters' unique special abilities, for being a decent time-killer, and for not being as horrible as the first. On the other, it's hated for not following canon, turning the characters into jokes completely unrelated to how they're featured in the story, and for being far too easy and monotone.
Another recurring topic of interest is the way the Big Bad was eventually defeated — shoving his head into an oncoming planetoid. Some are adamant that's it's ironic in its simplicity, for finishing off such a developed villain notorious for his inextricable plans in such a casual way, others say it was just plain anticlimactic, too sudden and mundane, and not near worth waiting 9+ years for.
There are, of course, the web serials, which either granted the writer Greg Farshtey the all-too-needed freedom to explore and develop the universe without the bounds of having to promote toys, or just gave him an excuse to write his own tacked-together crowd-pleasing fanfiction into canon material, and kill off whichever character he found challenging to make interesting. Heck, Greg's writing in general seems to have strongly divided the fandom in the later years, with some hailing him as the only person worthy of ever touching the property, and others condemning him for wrecking the universe.
The art of Stuart Sayger, who did the artwork for the '06-'07 comics and for a story in one of the later graphic novels, seems to have an equal share of lovers and loathers, as some greeted his style as a welcome and refreshing new take on the BIONICLE world, but others felt it was too different, and unsuitable for the theme's complex, robotic character designs. One thing they all agree on is that it was rarely ever notOff Model.
One of the most divisive sets is the titan-sized Toa Mata Nui◊. Fans (those that could get it at least) are of two minds about the figure. Some see it as one of the best large-size sets of the whole franchise, with a unique and complicated construction, and praise it for giving Mata Nui the sword he had in The Movie. Others regard it as a sub-par follow-up to the previous year's well-received titan Takanuva, with a poor design, messy color scheme, bad proportions, and hate it for being wildly Off Model (even the sword) and for not fitting into the established scale of the figures. One thing they all like, though, is that it has a golden Mask of Life.
Prior to the news of the line resurfacing in 2015, there was another break between those fans that wanted to bring the franchise back and those who thought it would have been a bad idea. Much of the former crowd has been made up of Fan Dumb, with the "anti-revivalists" often being more reasonable in their position, as they realized that, with all the similar but newer LEGO Themes (Hero Factory, Ninjago, Legends Of Chima) adopting a much more Lighter and Softer approach, BIONICLE's darker and complex story would probably only suffer if it was really brought back. Part of what made this break so big is that a lot of the "pro" fans misinterpreted the other side's position, thinking that they didn't want to have BIONICLE back, period. After the first rumors about the series' return started appearing, the arguments mostly ceased.
The Hero Factory mini-movie Invasion from Below has caused an interesting fandom break: generally, many BIONICLE fans have maintained that the animations and promos done by Ghost VFX and Advance were the "true" way of telling a story, and when these companies were announced as the episode's creators, they cheered that Hero Factory might finally rise up to its predecessor. After the episode aired, some now claim that they should never try to expand their influence to LEGO media outside of short promos with minimal or no dialogue. The episode itself was met with very mixed reception, it's either the best or worst episode of the series.
The original BIONICLE DVD movies redesigned the characters drastically to make them look more biomechanical, accurate to the backstory in which they have many organic parts. The fourth film and basically all other media depicted them just as the toys, basically as robots. Fans are split over which is more "right" — most old-school fans who watched the old animations and played the games claim that giving them organic properties is stupid because mechanical robots are cooler, whereas fans who followed the story more closely attack this notion. The designs of the original movies also divide the fans purely by aesthetic merit — some love them for making the characters feel more "alive", others hate them for often looking nothing like the toys, and because they barely have any recognizable LEGO parts on them.
There's also the infamous communists. There's the Marxists, the Marxist-Lenninists (who are usually just Trotskyists in disguise), the Trotskyists, the Stalinists, the Maoists and the Socio-democrats. Talk about broken fanbase.
Amendments are necessary. 'Social Democracy' is a center-left ideology and not connected to Communism, any more than socialism is. Communism is not exclusively Marxist and neither are all left-leaning ideologies Communist. Also, the above mentioned groups are all breakaways from Marxism-Leninism, in that they all accept Marx, Engels and Lenin to have created the foundation for their ideologies. So, yes, broken fanbase, but it's a bit more complicated than that.
There is also the De Leonist/Leninist split with De Leonists 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.
[adult swim]: Anime vs Comedy. And within the comedy fanbase, Animated vs. Live-Action... as well as Original Programming vs. Syndicated/Imported.
Photographers and photography:
Canon or Nikon cameras: which is the absolute best?
Black and white vs colour: 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.
Among smartphone users, Android vs IOS. That is all.
Android itself is a Broken Base many times over due to it running on so many phones, many with devoted fans.
Talking about certain contestants on The Price Is Right 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.
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.
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. Word of God 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.
The constantly changing image of dinosaurs often sparks debates. Old-school dinosaur geeks that grew up in the Jurassic Park-era display a fierce harshness towards the scientifically now-accepted fact that, for example, raptors and 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 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 Serious Business, and don't want mass-media misrepresenting their work.
Referenced in-universe in the book version of Jurassic Park. 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 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 nixed it.
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?
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"?
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.
In some parts of Britain, there is a furious disagreement about wind power. Some ardent opponents accuse those who support or tolerate any wind power project of being dishonest or deceived people, quite happy to destroy the countryside with inefficient monstrosities to further their financial or political interests. Some strong supporters will accuse those who have any objection to a wind power project of being ignorant nimbys who are motivated by selfish interests, and of scaremongering with unfounded or warped claims about what is fundamentally a safe, clean and efficient technology. Both camps declare that science supports them, and both suggest that the other is doing future generations a great disservice.
In the UK, the pronunciation of the word 'scone' is hotly contested- does it rhyme with "cone" or with "gone"? The order of the jam and cream on a cream tea tends to divide people, as well!
We can, however, safely say that Dwight D. Eisenhower has the least-broken base out of any president since World War II, 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.
While many shows on Nickelodeon are prone to this, the network itself has been prone to this for years. 1) When it started to "decline", which is usually chosen as 1986, 1990, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2009. 2) When it started to get "good", which many people say is in 1985 when Fred Seibert and Alan Goodman saved the network, 1991 when the Nicktoons debuted, 1999 when Sponge Bob Square Pants debuted, or many different years. 3) When it started to get "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".
Cartoon Network is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it really hit it's stride with the Powerhouse era and went to hell in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the 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 a whole lot better in 2010, and continues to get better.
Disney Channel 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.
Disney and Nickelodeon have the cartoons vs Live Action debate. Though, pretty much everyone agrees that Cartoon Network abandoning animation was a bad idea.
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 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.
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.