I disagree. Explain with facts that aren't just opinions. Support them with sources. I am here to listen. Go for it. If you ask the same of me, I can do so. That is the criteria it takes for me to agree with you. You need to have FACTS, and you need to have SOURCES that are VALID to back them. When we talk about sources, what I mean is that your source being some person with random opinions or conjectures of their own on a youtube video is not facts. That is a youtuber putting their opinions and conjectures into the public space. They shouldn't be DISMISSED without consideration, but they shouldn't be accepted as fact without validation either.
The criteria is simple. Make it the truth, support it with facts, give me sources that analyze the data and show that the facts are accurate. This is not rocket science. It is VERY BASIC investigative research. Extremely basic. I haven't brought into the question triangulation of sources, longitudinal analysis, metadta analysis, network analysis, comparative case studies, grant histories, institutional affiliations, draft versions, non-verbal cues, policy gaps, cross language variations, temporal context or ANY of the other methods someone might use when going deeper.
Keep it simple. Just come to me with the truth, some facts to support that truth, and sources that show your facts are accurate. I'm willing to listen, if you can.
Caption this Meme
