I only have the opposite type of story: I stopped seeing a guy in part because he, upon finding out I was a hockey fan, said he didn't think Team Canada in Sochi was any good. This was after the tournament, too, so he knew the result, and he tried to make the case that they just got very lucky.

What really sealed the deal (or unsealed it, I guess) was that when I tried to have the discussion (I can handle people disagreeing with me) it was clear he didn't know much about hockey. I said something like, "they weren't an offensive juggernaut, but it's hard to argue with the defence and goaltending," he said the defencemen were a bunch of nobodies(!), the only one he'd heard of was Subban.

Imagine knowing so little about hockey that you haven't heard of Doughty, Keith, Pietrangelo, etc., but being so blindly confident that you're right. On top of that, he didn't like sports at all, he thought they were frivolous.

The problem really was that this was a pattern for him. He'd assert an opinion as fact, I'd disagree but be willing to discuss, he'd use my willingness to discuss as proof I was wavering in my opinion and claim "victory" in the "debate."

(Um, sorry this is so long. I guess I needed to get that off my chest.)