Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement 

Support us to make more educational videos at www.patreon.com/sprouts.

People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care

I find that disagreements are rarely about getting to the truth. A million other things are going on beneath the surface.

I grew up in a family where conflicts were not resolved but forgotten and ignored. Now it's hard for me to resolve conflicts, I just withdraw into myself, close myself up and pretend that nothing happened, hoping that over time everything will be forgotten and return to normal.

Even the strongest argument is useless against stupidity. When finding oneself in a disagreement, proceed with the highest level of argument. If the presence of stupidity becomes evident in the opponent, disengage. One's time and energy to that point have been wasted, except for the discovery that stupidity is present. It would be foolish at that point to waste any more time or energy.

Name calling 1:34 Ad hominem 1:49 Responding to tone 2:15 Contradiction 2:42 Counter argument 3:09 Refutation 3:42 Refuting the central point 4:13

1. As we have seen in the abolishment of slavery, voting status is not the deciding factor of who gets basic human rights. 2. Partial agreement. Freedom includes how one uses and cares for your body, but a woman cannot exercise control of her body by gouging out someone’s eye with her thumb. Your rights end where another’s begin. 3. There are known genetic factors that cause a difference in melanin distribution in the skin, as well as facial structure and muscle density. 4. Fully agree. The only way to deal with bad ideas is to discuss them openly without threat of violence or legal repercussions.

This is literally what every discord users need to know xd Sometimes the arguments is just full of weak disagreements.

A good rundown of the types of counteragruments however if anyone argues that the Earth is flat, it is certainly not for the lack of videos of the Earth from space. It's that they don't believe those videos are genuine. So using Earth in space videos as an argument in this debate is pointless. Frankly, given the amount of BS being promoted as truth for the last 2 years I myself am starting to doubt a lot of things I thought were settled .

Race and colour are an effect of genetics which decides our phenotypes, so clearly, they have a scientific root. However, there is no superior or inferior colour or race. A fish swims, and a bird flies. They are different and diverse. One can't mark a clear superiority or inferiority here. As the bird drowns in water and fish suffocates in air. Everyone is important for the functioning of a society. Maybe there will be a genius fish to invent an air suit and genius bird to be able to go scuba diving.

1 - namecalling 2 - Ad hominem 3 - Responding to the tone 4 - contradiction 5 - counterargument 6 - Refutation 7 - refuting the central point Paul Graham, 2008

Awesome video! I think it's pretty inoortsnt to know how to debate and argue nowadays, when social networks give us constantly a place to put this hierarchy on trial. I going to share it on Twitter right now, let's see if people wants to learn about it!

Many might disagree, but I learned this a long time ago when my teacher told me to think twice before responding. Now many people I know have to think twice if they want to understand me.

when there is a disagreement in topics, the most open minded and wise thing to do is 1- clarify what others are saying. Repeat it to them to make sure thats the point they are trying to point across. After making sure that you understood their statement, its important to do the 2- and this is the most important thing that most people DO NOT DO, which is , to actually do ask questions from the other person to understand why do they believe what they believe, and if there was no time, or the person is not able to explain clearly, to ask them for more info, for example, if a person thinks earth is flat, the open minded thing to do is to have them send you links to watch, books to read, and completely learn about the topic fully, the same with political sides, and economics, and etc. To understand why people believe the things they believe, its important to actually throw yourself into their world, and learn about other sides that is out of your comfort zone. That is how you become knowledgable, smart, can have interesting and wise debates. I teach this to my daughter, never argue, debate, open your mouth about issues, topics that you have not learned deeply, researched, yourself, instead of listening to tv box.... Everyone has an agenda to push and nowadays its hard to find anything , if you see anything online that has debunk videos, the more curious you should be about that topic! that means its a good info they are trying to hide. If you show flat earthers the google photos of the flat earth, you will offend them, because thats not actually what they believe. thats just an example.

This is probably one of the only places you will find well-constructed arguments in a comment section

We are educators, and the world is mean

Good video! sometime the argument becomes something that you want to win and not about to learn. and in my opinion This Is the big problem.

Can u make a video on opinions. Like how one becomes fixated on his opinion and won't ever change it no matter how much proof or contradiction is given

Most discussions takes place in emotions. Thus making it futile. I have often had better results just saying "I disagree", shrug and walk away

1) At the base of this argument there's two ideas : the first is that the woman is putting her needs before the fetus's, but the fetus will suffer if he does become a baby, not if he gets aborted. The second one is that the rights of the fetus are being ignored, however, the most logical reason why the fetus should have rights is that it might become a human being, however that logic is flawed because, although different, there are many situations where everyone would disregard something that might become a human being, sperm, egg cells, etc 2) absolutely true, the control over our own body is the most basic of all rights, so unless the woman can't or isn't in the right state to make an important decision, she should always have control over her own body, even in the case where she would make the wrong choice.

Excellent video! I made notes and tried to dissect what I heard. Made my understanding greater! It even helped me formulate my thoughts on the viewpoint I opposed, which allowed me to make _multiple respectful (and on topic) counterpoints,_ instead of thinking, “That’s wrong, so stupid.” It’ll take practice, it’s extra work, and it’s a high bar to reach but, so worth it. I feel proud of myself rn. This is the content I live for!

Imagine having to do multiple takes for this one. "We are educators, and the world ain't round". You can hear the delivery get slightly hastier the 5th time. Had a good chuckle from that one. Fantastic topic covered by the way, I was just rehearsing these points to some peers of mine - invaluable insight for clarity.

The ones that I have disagreement is the firsts two statements, which I consider to be related. In this sense, is not just a matter of having control of your own body, but also having to deal with the life of another human being. If freedom is inherent to everyone, the unborn person should also be considered for that purpose, regardless the capability to vote, which is, after all, also an act of freedom. I am not taking a position regarding rather abortion is right or wrong, or if women should have more control over their body, but I believe I am pointing out an argument to effectively oppose the firsts two statements together. It is a very complex theme discussed around the world by parliaments and even supreme courts of justice. I welcome anyone who wants to build a constructive debate regarding.

Very interesting, thank you!

Great work 🥳 Thank you 💜

No. Other than their own progeny, the generation before always blames the next, and vice versa. 2. YES. When a predominantly male group makes legislation limiting female anything, they have no common basis for understanding and are therefore wrong. 3. The pigmentation is biological, the reactions to it are not. 4. Absolutely. It is my right to say it, it is your right to not listen to it. - BPB.

Seems in conversations, when disagreeing. Only Agreements & Contradictions are what i do. Love to know what you guys do!! 😄😄

absolutely brilliant video

Lets agree to Disagree.

One more is to be added.(from my perspective) asking questions abt there argument.something like socratic method

1: Disagree. Many dying people cannot vote, but that doesn't mean we can kill them. Black people in the past also could not vote. 2: Disagree. There's a certain thing woman and even man cannot do with their own body, such as being completely naked in public, and we as a society put limits on our own freedom. 3: Disagree. Our race and skin color is biological, but our ways to treat others can be constructed. 4: Agree. Dumb people must be told that they are wrong, and they must change for the betterment of themselves and the society. 5: ??? Who is "we"? EDIT: on the 4th statement, I don't mean to belittle someone who lack certain information. I forgot to say that we must correct these people with gentleness and graciously.

I'd name the video "The rudest disagreements to the most polite ones". This is the strongest disagreement I guess then.

Awesome video. I do think that you encounter problems when arguing a point when an individual takes that point as personal item or identity. You counter the notion that the world ain't round with various facts and logic, but the person who made the statement now feels that you're attacking them because the belief that the world ain't round is a core and fundamental belief which gives them a sense of identity. They are part of the "educated" group who have higher knowledge, you doubt the sage wisdom they as educators have provided. You challenge the point they have made, but they in turn get offended and start calling you names. What started as a genuine conversation has now devolved into screeching, zealous, anti-social behaviour. Sometimes, you just can't convince fools.

Everyone should have to watch this.

This is what I've noticed with politicians

You could say, "If the World is not round then what is it?" So that when you argue you make sure you are not talking about the same thing.

However, sometimes rhetoric IS more effective than dialectic. Especially when dealing with the below average side of the bell curve... All of the well crafted dialectic in the world isn't going to get through their lack of cognitive ability, let alone their existing programming.

I agree with truth when I discover it. I have nothing to say about incorrect thinking of others.

I prefer first to let the person explain more his point of view and argue it

Thanks

Yes, good argumentation SHOULD make a better world. But many have arrived at erroneous beliefs through feelings and tribal loyalty. Presenting good argumentation may actually be counter-productive. They’ll dig their heels in. If you really mean to correct erroneous belief it may be necessary to deconstruct why the believer came to their belief from a social and psychological perspective. “Believing the Earth is flat makes you feel smart, right? You must admire the person who convinced you the first time.” They are probably not crazy or stupid for arriving at their beliefs. Adopting those beliefs brought acceptance from their chosen group.

"if liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" I agree, I think that all people should have the right to say what they want as long as they don't call for violence, or what they say could be harmful to others, like shouting "fire" when there isn't a fire, but that said people dont't have to listen to them, they simply can't stop them from speaking in the first place, so you can't ban people for saying what they want to as long it isn't harmful.

When you engage in a conversation objectively looking to be the winner and as a result making the other party the looser I think you both loose. Part of why political and religious discussions go no where. The most rewarding conversations I’ve came across are when you try to understand the other party. Understand their cognitive processes and why they conclude what they conclude. Understand potential biases you may have and they may have. Are we speaking from emotion rather than logic? Often times if you are overly emotional about a topic you open yourself up to being bias. There’s something to take away from every social engagement. If you want to wrestle with someone for the sake of it. Chess is probably better or jiu jitsu. Food for thought.

I look around the internet and it's all stage on eof disagreement

Excellent video, once again doing a great job at helping people think critically. I would offer a further level of response that is more discursive, rather than merely countering. Instead of immediately rebutting a statement you disagree with, ask neutral, respectful questions aimed at understanding why they believe what they do, before providing your own view e.g. 'that's a thought provoking idea, what makes you believe that?'. This will help get to the root of the statement without causing defense. If you don't find their statement convincing, your response can be 'how interesting, I personally feel X because Y'. The aim is to take a journey together in pursuit of knowledge and understanding. You might find that you challenge your own preconceptions in the process, or gain greater sympathy for those who disagree with you.* *Naturally, you could still receive responses that seem emotive and ill considered, but at least this way you encourage others to think critically with you, rather than becoming defensive and more entrenched in preconceived ideas.

It seems that all of these statement's were specifically made to be, for most people, morally in the right but not for the right reason, or for a misleading, vague reason. Which is why, in most cases I believe one should always ask for clarification or elaboration on an argument they disagree with.

Seek first to understand where the other person is coming from. All disagreements come from a fear of losing something. Find out what they fear losing to understand why they think and feel the way they do.

LOL!! I can't even! 5• the earth is not round [nor ellipsoid]. circles and ellipses are flat 2-D shapes, they should be saying, "the earth is not a sphere," but the earth is not a sphere, it's an _oblate spheroid."_ however, it is a challenge to make the convincing argument in a room with relying on uncommon experiences such as "the view from space."

This was good

(6:30) I'm gonna go back to the points listed at the beginning of the video and try to refute them 1. first of all, abortion has to do with unborn fetuses, not babies. Second, children aren't able to vote yet killing them is illegal 2. The same applies to men, so I'm confused by the quote 3. Something I heard about this a few years ago from a trusted source alters how I think about this to the point that I don't know what to think anymore 4. That is incredibly vague. Also, we have dictionaries and can check what liberty actually means

I am gonna use all of these, in case I'm loosing argument.

"We are educators and the world ain't round" My disagreement: 😡😡👊👊

Thanks for sharing this video, much appreciated. I’m quite pleased that I thought about saying that the world was more like an oval shape. But I thought that that would be a slightly obnoxious response. Although I do understand that it is also a really good response because it’s not connecting the two statements and forming an possibly incorrect assumption about this. The “central point”idea, is such an interesting way of looking at things but - being totally honest, in order to really get a proper understanding of this, I’d have loved to have been guided through each one of the statements. I’d find it difficult to do this on my own after only 8 minutes. 🙂❤️🐿🌈

4• limiting speech that we agree with isn't rational [likely], only that with which we are naive, ambivalent, or oppose. 'free speech' is not just the right for one to speak, but also the right for one to hear others speech. if a person is prevented from hearing an idea by a third person or authority, then they have lost a choice of their autonomy. even if the opinion is 'bad' or 'irrational' or 'unsubstantiated,' it could be any listener that would be able to refute it or better formulate it towards a workable solution - if given the opportunity to first hear it. there is no other way to progress except through a conflict of ideas and a negotiated [argued] solution of compromise or agreement. limiting speech only reveals an inability to think or defend one's own opinions. edit:typo

You left out the concept of Truth. There really is True Knowledge and False Knowledge and lifeforms need true knowledge to survive.

I don’t know the names in english, but those are all sophism which are ‘False claim or reasoning despite appearance of truth’ Sophism which comes from Sophists who opposed Socrate with these kind of answers.

We are educators and the world ain’t round. :yes and run to live another day

Sadly, for most people it doesn't matter how much evidence or reasoning you put forward since they have inner emotional resistances or insecurities that stop them from accepting that information or critically evaluating it in good faith.

"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" - Ronald Reagan

I think it only works if both sides willingly participate in moving up in hierarchy of arguments. Usually arguments move down, fast.

If liberty means telling people want they do not want

Answer to all 5 at the start of the video: 1. No, voting isn't applicable until you're 18. 2. How do you know men aren't chained by this reasoning as well? 3. Race is a constructed principle, but both it and skin color are directly affected by genetics. 4. I have a mixed opinion and can't give a good answer to this question. 5. No, it's a sphere. Answer at the end of the video: The same thing basically, since I couldn't just answer yes or no to the questions without feeling morally ambiguous... I agreed with the first half of each statement, but felt that the logic behind the decisions was faulty and needed corrections before I could consider them seriously.

1 Yes, 2 Yes, 3 Not really, 4 Yes.

Cool video

We don't discuss with people who say "we are educated and the world aren't round" because either they are joking, or they are too dumb to understand, and it is pointless to discuss with them in either case as in a battle of wit between a sage and a madman the madman wins as he don't understand defeat.

I see many links to Arthur Schopenhauer's dialectics ("Art of Being Right")

2• it's unjust to limit the argument to 'women' and 'body,' when no person is free who does not control the fruits of their labor which includes that and also men and what one can do with one's body - ie free will. in any society, with every rule, someone's autonomy is being limited. while not explicit in the comment, the opinion is largely associated with the debate over abortion but except in the extreme and limited examples, the woman has made a choice to engage in the activities that result in pregnancies, and while it grown within her, it is not her body, but another that lives.

Seems like Graham is claiming the set of logical fallacies is hierarchical. Instead let's say it's communicating something about the pedagogical system of the survey population.

All disagreements are inherently equal and the idea of them having a hierarchy is classist 😂

Liberty Vs Freedom?

I have a question about reactions to higher forms of disagreements. How do you respond to those with weak egos who lash out at the idea of being challenged at all? You see this in modern activism. Feminists calling men victimizers for not bowing down to them. Vegans calling meat eaters murderers while ignoring that plants are also alive. There are others. These are just a couple examples.

1• even if babies could vote, they'd likely distribute into the same camps as everyone else who has already been born and therefore beyond the scope of 'abortion.' abortion is legal because it's an easy solution to a complex problem.

Could a form of valid argument also be a question, though? In the example, "No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body" that is a vague statement. Control her body in what sense? Control when she urinates? Make the choice whether or not to carry a fetus to full term? Those are two completely different scenarios. Plus, we have addressed why this hypothetical freedom isn't, so then what is it? I do not argue much, I often just ask questions that allow people to find the conclusion I came to. It probably has a lot to do with me being a teacher, thought.

There is also the 'Nyahhh, Nyahhh, Nyahhh, I can't hear you' disagreement, which provides a powerful and absolutely irrefutable end to all argumentation. You may be familiar with one of its more common variants, the 'Fuck You'.

The first explanation I’ve seen covering Critical Thinking that ignores logic and reasoning, as in the 2,000+ year old studio of what makes a valid and sound argument, and what are fallacies.

We are educated, and the world ain’t round.

Yes to 1 and 4 no to all the others

I wish we could do this in politics. On twitter i see so many attacks.on how people look or their intelligence, and nothing about their policies. Im so tired of that.

I generally try to go for higher levels of disagreement because those are far more productive arguments. However, sometimes, (and I hate to admit this) it’s just more fun and satisfying to go for the lower, infinitely more immature levels of engagement simply to get someone all wound up and pissed off. Especially if it’s a topic I don’t really care about or if I just think the person is a prick. I guess we can’t be grownups all the time..🤷🏻

Gosh if only people had discussions like this...but since even science can sometimes be wrong, what's the solution ? I need to know

I think that

I can't really say I agree with any of them, because I'm not 100% sure what any of them mean. All are subject to more than one interpretation, so I would need to clarify what the speaker means through further questioning. Is that a default disagree?

I'm so above these native people

There's a thing called the "Fallacy of fallacies", which just means that because a person used a fallacious argument DOESN'T mean that they're wrong. For example, "The New Orleans Saints are going to win this next game, because the QB's favorite color is blue." I only mention that example even though the video isn't talking about logical fallacies, because sometimes a person is actually stupid. Statistically speaking, roughly half of the people are going to be below-average-intelligence. My point is that calling them "stupid" is technically an ad-hominem. BUT... don't fall into the "fallacy-of-fallacies" trap. just because it was an 'ad-hominem' doesn't mean that it's wrong. After all, it is possible for people to be both wrong *AND* stupid.... so the appearance of that label doesn't necessarily mean much.

I like the first two quotes because I believe they go together. I disagree with both for the same the reason. If the baby could vote obviously they would vote for life, but I believe it should be illegal because of the act of murdering a human being. A woman can be raped and still be free even though she did not control her body when the rape happened. Freedom has different meanings to different people

'abortion comes from disallowing dissent' mildly agree. it is true that you arent allowing the self presevation of a living thing to express itself politically. but that also doesnt mean that it is operable. if you dont allow something to occur and it isnt possible to occur even without your action, the action itself is moot. it is like cheering for your team during a sporting activity. you may feel you have contirubted but that doesnt properly insinuate that you actually contributed. the baby or fetus not being able to express itself means that you cant interviene and remedy the lack of political enfranchisement. the best you can do is extrapolate from known references, and situational data to reach a conclusion beyond what our mute interlocutor can express. we would need to take into account both the individuals drive to live, as well as the interpersonal obligations and human norms beyond itself. the infant might want to live internally but an aduquatly bad family situation like being born to a famine, or a fragmented society without a central nation, or to a single mother- and the drive comes out of ignorance of the situation calibrated for a different and evolutionary environment. you can also be alive in prison or while being tortured, so the bigger picture is whether you think harm increases with bodily damage or if there is a threshhold and once you cause capital injuries the amount of harm subsides. if you think it is worse to give someone a deadly cancer than to blow their brains out, this valuing of torment enters into the moral calculous. 'no woman can call herself free who doesnt control her own body' that is such a failure of reason that would cause someone to fail a turing test. people only partially control our bodies, we are basicly minnerettes with nerve based strings attached to our heads. so saying that if you cant do what you want you arent free is comparing an imagined ideologically based world, with objective reality, and then choosing your delusions over an opperable understanding of the world. it is posturing disfunction. you cant argue against brute facts and observations and win. you cant argue a cliff's edge out of existing by demanding it conform to moral character. this too extends to social laws. you can accept that you disaggree with some social standard, which accepts the standard to some degree. or you can throw a tantrum appealing to obvious delusions- and that rejects the social standard but you cant do both. and if you do the later you break your capacity to be respected by using meaning in a sociable manner. in general it lacks salience, cogence, and pertinence. thus the argument is a red herring. 'race and skin color are socially constructed, not biologically natural' race is a term which refers to large amounts of adaptive distinction which doesnt preclude interbreeding. skin color is the color of skin, it is not socially constructed, it is observable. whether it is biologically natural or not depends on whether phenotypes are genetically encoded or groomed into students. both positions can be defended but do they have similar strength and rigor? evolution is on one side of the argument, and on teh other is the fact that malnutrition and a variety of medical diseases can change the presenting phenotype. allergic reactions can induce swelling, and exercise can reduce fat storage. so do you take the darwinistic position that evolution happens between generations, which means that the thesis is wrong. or do you take the lamarkian position that organisms change over the course of their lives, and that a coal miner who has breathing problems also shows it is wrong but less wrong, cause the scars we accumulate over life which dont kill us. restated, is what you said wrong, or is blackface not wrong? if coal miners come up from the mines looking like black people then yes, rapid racial change is possible, but are those people black? are you totally wrong, are you less wrong but still wrong, or are you right because you reject the language norms of the language you are using thus making a strawman which will be misinterpreted by any not in your cult? 'if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they dont want to hear' i like the quote but liberty meaning anything is a delusion. we use words to have meaning they dont have meaning in themselves. and telling people things they dont want to hear is insinuated to be a moral good in and of itself, but this transgresses on freedom of association, and the capacity to reject individuals, and groups, and by extension political dissent. teh idea that liberty means a tyranic lack of capacity for political dissent is at best ironic. 'we are educators and the world aint round.' that is an appeal to authority, and also is presumptive to think i care about their opinion without the salience of being actionable. it needs a clear goal which is respectable, and it needs enough respect for me as the audience to inteface or entertain my current circumstance scuh that it applies to a problem i am currently dealing with. it is basic sales. you have to identify a pain, and a method of resolution, and how the audience person contextualizes the problem. if someone isnt making enough profit, look at their costs, and their frustrations, and what they complain to industry peers about. the world could be round, or for the sake of arguement, flat. but neither has any relevance to something im dealing with and contemplating, so it will be discarded as white noise instead of being incorporated into crystalized intelligence. if you need to reject social structures becoming adversarial to a power relationship you hold in contempt, then you will be more receptive to conspriacy theories, and again it is because it merges with you sense of the world.

"Abortion is legal because babies can't vote" Technically, if we separate those two statements, everything you said was true. Abortion is legal (depending on where you live, but most places in the US are relatively close to somewhere where it is legal) and babies cannot vote (again, in the US). However, adding the word because implies that anyone who can't vote is legally murderable - and that's just not the case. As soon as a baby is born, their lives are suddenly considered important enough to preserve, even though there's essentially no practical difference between the two. "No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body" Yeah I'll actually agree with the sentiment of that one. Of course, the wording of the statement would actually include any woman who is paralyzed, but I think most people reading can understand that this is referring to legal restrictions. And legally, any woman who is not free to choose celibacy is not free at all. Any woman who is not free to use a hospital to give birth, I would argue, is not free at all (As an American, I will be the first to admit that I'm woefully uneducated about the world outside the US, but I don't know of any places without access to hospitals). However, being free does not give you the right to cause harm to other humans Of course, there are also other restrictions. I (not a woman but that's not relevant in any of this discussion) am not free to cause other adults or minors harm either. But again, the sentiment of the prompt was referring to abortion "Race and Skin Color are socially constructed, not biologically natural" Okay that's just straight up not true. Race SUPERIORITY is socially constructed, but the fact that there are separate skin colors is not. I would even go as far as saying that race is socially constructed, as when we're discussing different races of nonhumans, it's only a separate race when there's significant biological differences. Skin color is biologically based and determined by how much melanin your cells produce. If you want to get REALLY into it, differing amounts of melanin reflect/absorb different wavelengths of light, so the wavelengths that ARE reflected change and so does the color interpreted by human brains. "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" Would absolutely agree with this one. I believe the only restriction greater than restriction of words is restriction of thoughts - and that's impossible. There are techniques to CHANGE thoughts, but we don't have a method of restricting people of thinking any given thoughts or even keeping track of which thoughts are thought. The most we can do is restrict what they say, so that's the most basic level of freedom

Only 15K views in 8 days, what is RU-vid even doing

Skin color is biological but it's impact is the social construct

1.Disagree 2.Agree 3.Disagree 4.Disagree 5.Disagree

Your counter argument also uses appeal to authority. By stating that you are a scientist, you are implying that your opinion is more valid due to your profession.

Name calling and ad homien arent the same?

just agree to disagree on broken promise arguments

no,yes,no,yes, trick questions

'Aint is incorrect English, learn to speak correctly'

Agree, Dosagree, Disagree,

this video come to me after i get arguing by who call me idiot, yeah my ex friend in game tried to revenge me to joining my What'sup group games. i realized many stranger and weirdos people in game so i think i must stopping playing for a while because shes Must be planning for make my own people far from me

👌

I disagree with the order of argument types although I'm perfectly happy to take it as read that whomever it was specified them in the order stated. In the earth not round example they are using their claim to be educators to add weight to their argument therefore I would argue that it is s perfectly valid thing to attack - define how the term educator applies to you, how do your credentials relate to the subject at hand and specify the authority you believe you have our are relying on to make that earth not round statement. Additionally tone can be very important. In the UK the current politicians in charge refer to migrants coming across the channel in small boats as an invasion. That term frames those people negatively. I'd also argue an invasion requires armed individuals intent on siezing property and/or land. These people are neither. So I think the tone is a perfectly valid attack line because it frames the argument.

Most Twitter users probably only know the first four stages. 😅