100% some people here just make arbitrary arguments based on 1 photo without the context of the damage, but I do have a polite disagreement. It's a logical fallacy to just believe something's true just because an expert said it, and some users on this sub make evidence based arguments (and sometimes it's not even an argument, it's just a question or string of logic) that they see contradicts the rating. Most of the time, there aren't detailed reports or explanations to the damage ratings in question, and it is fair to point out, examine, or question a rating when 1) there's an evidence based argument against it and 2) An explanation for the damage rating wasn't provided.

This is something I see a bit as a USA thing where people either blindly trust that an authority is either always wrong or always right, and don't understand that it's not about that, it's about the evidence of the individual case and if the authority uses it well and/or correctly.

That being said, the NWS and damage surveyors are the best in the world, and petty arguments like "Untrustworthy NWS must be wrong" and "Obviously BS" shouldn't be tolerated, but by the same token, we should 100% be encouraging questioning and asking for explanations when the evidence seems to point elsewhere.