Basically, we need to better understand that you aren't going to change minds here if you get confronted, beyond one counter-point.
1. You say something.
2. They say the opposite and maybe are a little rude about your opinion.
3. You counter with some added reasoning
4. They counter with theirs, likely in a way that you either believe is wrong, or you change your mind. So
a) You've changed your mind. Problem solved
b) You think they're way off. Well, you've already explained yourself. They're not going to change. Let them be wrong
5. Move onto another thread. This conversation, or your part in it, is over. Anything more just wastes your time. You will never change someone's mind after one counterpoint (or, rarely, maybe a second one). What does winning the unwinnable argument do? You don't know how great or bad a player is. Are you a scout? Even scouts don't truly know. It's opinion, and theirs is different. So that's the end of it.
The reward for getting him or her to see things your way is, what, winning the Internet? Yeh! He thinks a player is good now when he used to think he was bad!
Here is a good example:
Capture.PNG
I wasn't going to change my opinion of Bonino and it was pretty clear he wasn't changing on Bonino. And frankly, I realized I didn't care if I changed his mind - maybe in a year I will remember and can get back to him after some facts are in the books.