The more firmly an opinion is voiced, the more firmly those that disagree will voice their counter-opinions. That's how debates get polarised.
It also doesn't help when you have a sub-set of fans of certain teams or riders who interpret everything other than blind, devotional praise as unwarranted tearing down, and also when double standards are applied. For example, you had people saying that it was totally wrong that I voice my (highly negative) opinions of Peter Sagan, but the forum back in 2015-16 was chocked full of posts about how wonderful the man was. But apparently one poster who disagrees was enough to be "spoiling" and "polluting" the forum by negativity. Yet at the same time as that was going on, stepping into the Valverde or Froome threads would see pages on pages of vitriol as bad as anything I was throwing at Sagan and more - but because those riders weren't so popular, that apparently wasn't "spoiling" or "polluting" the forum. Coincidentally, most of the trolling in that particular saga wasn't the "haters" trolling the fans, it was the other way round - Sagan fans continuing to needle me on the subject in order to provoke the expected negative reaction, so that they could shout at me for being negative. It works both ways.
I'm sorry that the polarised debate has come up about a subject you're passionate about, but 3000 posts of "this guy is the most wonderful thing in the world" adds nothing to the forum either, and lovebombing the forum while silencing those who disagree and labelling them as haters only serves to turn perceived "haters" into real ones.