This work explores simulations of polarized discussions from a general and theoretical premise. Specifically the question of whether a plausible avenue exists for a subgroup in an online social network to find a disagreement beneficial and what that benefit could be. A methodological framework is proposed which represents key factors that drives social media engagement including the iterative accumulation of influence and the dynamics for the asymmetric treatment of messages during a disagreement. It is shown that prior to a polarization event a trend towards a more uniform distribution of relative influence is achieved which is then reversed by the polarization event. The reasons for this reversal are discussed and how it has a plausible analogue in real world systems. A pair of inoculation strategies are proposed which aim at returning the trend towards uniform influence across users while refraining from violating user privacy (by remaining topic agnostic) and from user removal operations.