Sure, I'd be happy to explain this in a simple way!

1. **Bitcoin hit $100,000**: Imagine you have a rare game toy, and someone is willing to give you $100,000 just for it! That's what happened with Bitcoin. It went from being worth almost nothing to $100,000.

2. **Jim Cramer likes Bitcoin**: Jim Cramer has a TV show where he talks about money and investments. He said Bitcoin is really good and that everyone should buy some. He thought buying Bitcoin was as good an idea as having secret knowledge that no one else knows (which isn't allowed in trading).

3. **Peter Schiff doesn't like this idea**: Another person, Peter Schiff, didn't agree with Jim Cramer. You know when your friend says they found a really cool secret spot to play, but you've played there and it's not really as great as they think? That's kind of what Peter Schiff thinks about Bitcoin. He thinks people are too excited about it, and that sometimes, when everyone is too excited about something, it stops being worth so much money.

4. **Bitcoin went down**: After Jim Cramer said he thought Bitcoin was a good idea, the price of Bitcoin went down for a bit. This happens sometimes when many people buy or sell something at once.

So, in simple terms, two people have different opinions about Bitcoin, and then its price moved because that's what happens with money - it goes up and down based on what people think of it. Read from source...

Based on the provided article, here are some points of critique, focusing on inconsistencies, biases, and irrational arguments:

1. **Lack of Context**: The article begins by mentioning Jim Cramer's proclamation about Bitcoin but fails to provide essential context. It doesn't explain why this is a "historic milestone" or what exactly Cramer said that was so impactful.

2. **Bias**: Peter Schiff's dismissive response is presented as a counterpoint, which implies an either-or situation (Cramer is right, or Schiff is right). However, there's no mention of any other expert opinions or balanced views. This creates a biased narrative.

3. **Inconsistency in Tone**: The article shifts tone abruptly between the celebration of Bitcoin's milestone and Schiff's bearish perspective without a clear transition or explanation for the turnaround.

4. **Emotional Behavior**: Both Cramer's and Schiff's statements seem to be driven by emotion rather than objective analysis. Cramer expresses excitement, while Schiff expresses skepticism bordering on cynicism. This kind of emotional language can inflame sentiment and isn't typically associated with rational, long-term investing strategies.

5. **Confirmation Bias**: The article ends by mentioning the "Inverse Cramer" phenomenon without any empirical data to support its existence or profitability. Mentioning it could be seen as perpetuating a confirmation bias - doing the opposite of what Cramer says might seem like a smart strategy, but there's no evidence that this actually works.

6. **Vague Headline**: The headline "System000 for the first time in history" is vague and doesn't convey any meaningful information about the article's content or the milestone achieved. It only serves to sensationalize the topic without providing context.

To improve the article, it would be beneficial to provide more context, include balanced viewpoints, use a consistent tone, and avoid emotionally charged language. Additionally, presenting data-driven arguments and including relevant facts could enhance its credibility.

Based on the content of the article, here's the sentiment analysis:

- **Benzinga Article**: Neutral to slightly bullish. The article reports Jim Cramer's positive views on Bitcoin without expressing a strong opinion itself.
- **Peter Schiff's Tweet**: Bearish. Schiff expresses skepticism and suggests that Cramer's statement could be a sign of a market top.

Overall, the article presents contrasting viewpoints from Cramer (bullish) and Schiff (bearish), with Benzinga maintaining a neutral stance in reporting their views.