Shakespeare Authorship: Dangers of Channeled Thinking

From my experiences and observations elsewhere, running under the banner of one alternate author of the Shakespeare works or another too obviously . .

1. channels thinking, clipping off new leads that might direct thought profitably along helpful avenues--perhaps leading to breakthroughs
2. runs off those with alternative, perhaps original/helpful, views and authorship theories
3. ends up looking like conjecture-based-upon-speculation, which weakens the Oxford case
4. focuses on a directed outcome of the discussion/research/analysis/theorizing, removing emphasis on the foundational/basic building blocks--that seem to need quite a bit of shoring up to convince
5. generates the same sort of We Have the Only Truth and Are You Fer Us or Agin Us type of discussant behavior observed among the Stratfordians (and others, certainly)

I sense is a major breakthrough awaits this whole area of study. I certainly wish to remain open to that possibility, and hope that we leave open that chance for others who've yet to make up their minds.
Further thoughts on points 1, 2, and 4 above . .
When we present 'A + B' the '= C' ('C' being an Oxfordian conclusion) is assumed because of where we're known to be coming from. So A and B must be disabled by the counter-discussant--because he knows what it's leading to, what it is meant to support, and he doesn't want it to go there.
In fact 'A' and 'B' might one day '= G'--perhaps even the counter-discussant might draw this conclusion, breaking out of his own preconception. Or somebody out there, yet unknown, might make 'A + B = Q', or, even more interestingly, 'A + B = X, Y, Z' which would blow us all out of our argumentative ruts.
Arriving at 'G', 'Q', or even 'X, Y, Z' might never happen without 'A' and 'B', but 'A' and 'B' have been destroyed by those who assume we're heading only to '= C' (in support of an Oxfordian solution).