Who acted more like Jesus? Arius or his opponents? If his opponents acted more like Christ, would Arius's views still be strong?
Among professing believers, or among unbelievers?
From my perspective, that is what should be at the heart of a question like this.
God's word says,
"
He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God." ( John 8:47 )
" My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" ( John 10:27 )
...so from where I'm standing, "popular vote" shouldn't matter.
Also, I see your question as being a form of "relativism", even though I don't think you meant it that way.
To reason that someone's actions, when presenting a subject, are enough to gain them a fair hearing over someone whose actions are poorer, seems very similar to something I used to hear when I was a member of the Christian Motorcyclists Association:
" You have to earn your right to speak."
In my reading of Scripture, I see the right to speak on things biblical as not revolving around relevancy, popularity of the subject, or whether or not a person is liked or hated.
For example, Rolfe Barnard was widely accepted as a Gospel preacher in many Baptist churches in his day...until he "converted to "Calvinism"" and lost most of his support and audience.
Did he stop preaching?
No.
And he always presented himself in a sober, serious- but-respectful manner ( as far as I know ), not "bashing his opponents", but allowing the Scripture and message to do the talking.
As an example from Scripture, Paul was hated by the Jews as a nation, yet he went into synagogues and reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, until they grew to recognize him and persecute him.
Did he stop preaching?
No.
BUT:
His actions were also tailored to be as respectful as possible ( 1 Corinthians 9:18-23 ) in order to "gain the more".
Seem contradictory?
I'll admit that it does, but...
As I see it, the Gospel ended up being hated or ignored anyway among the vast number of people where he traveled, even though he presented himself in a respectful manner.
So, why did he present it as "just the facts", and let the chips fall where they may, instead of railing against his opponents?
Because I see the Lord commanding him to do it that way to remain free of any additional blame ( 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 ) and sin.
As He told His disciples when sending them out:
" Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18 and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. " ( Matthew 10:16-18 )
So did He send Paul, in my opinion.
In the end, Arius' teachings were identified as heresy ( false doctrine used to divide the sheep ) and thrown out of the churches.
I guess I'm not looking for answers from others. It's just something I am thinking about.
I know, but I thought I'd throw in anyway.