Hierachy of Disagreement

     If only for the reason that I love using words more than once in the same sentence repeatedly, I disagree with the hierarchy of disagreement. The Internet ceased being a place of calm and civil disagreement when the first person commented "First!" on a youtube video.
     Originally, of course, the Internet was made for the spread of knowledge. Then, it became popular. Now it's infested with trolls, flame wars, and other various forms of stupidity incarnate. However, the people who want to use it for research are still easily capable of doing so. On youtube itself, the comments don't even load unless you actively scroll down to make a comment yourself, or if you want to read them and laugh at all the trolls.
     The fighting does very little harm, but is entertaining in most cases. A common trend in humans is seeking entertainment, much of which frequently involves violence. In the past, this violence has been quite physical and resulted in the deaths of many people. "Are you not entertained?" is a movie quote that evidences this mindset. Though internet fights can cause carpal tunnel if done too frequently without an ergonomic keyboard, they do not lead to the decapitations that were the outcomes of the fights of previous entertainment forms. And seriously, Facebook would be basically worthless without the fun of watching people argue pointlessly.
Normally this is a pretty worthless point, but in this case it's more applicable than in others: on the internet, no one ever obeys all of the rules. No one even knows the rules, because no one reads the terms of services of any websites. No one will care if this hierarchy is used in various sites. There are already rules on most websites against name-calling, and no one cares because if a user does get banned, he can just make another account and keep on trolling.
     The concept is incapable of being universally applied due to the concept of Russell's teapot: if someone makes an indisputable claim that is outstandingly ridiculous, it is completely impossible to attain the highest level of disagreement or any of the other levels involving evidence.
     Even though the hierarchy itself really means nothing and isn't very beneficial to anything, it is sort of based on concepts in use in the internet and the real world as well. Ad hominem and name calling are two of the famous logical fallacies, and both are generally frowned upon and likely to get a person banned from most places on the internet. A person responding to someone's point by calling him an ---hat is going to be yelled at by a mod/admin; in real life he will be either shunned and eventually left friendless or beaten up for being a terrible human being.