Disagree. If the explanation is good, clear and correct, anyone gibbering nonsense in disagreement with it will come across as exactly that.
The video you post is irrelevant for dozens or reasons. First (and I'm baffled that I need to repeat this) there will be no right of reply! There is no possibility of a ref on a pitch getting in a "Heated debate" with a pundit, because the ref will have no idea what the pundit has said. A pundit can disagree with the ref, and they'll either be right or wrong, they'll come across well or not and that's the end of it.
Second - because it's a clear example of the refereeing team getting it absolutely wrong. Where a mistake is made, it doesn't matter if there's an explanation or not, it's going to get hammered regardless. There's no fix to that problem other then minimising mistakes.
And third - Dean has no credibility. He goes on about "the law says...", but he wasn't so fussed about what the law says when he chose not to embarrass AT by sending him to the monitor. It's frankly embarrassing that he's still paid for his "expertise" after that and I'm genuinely surprised he's given as much credit as he is - he should be laughed out of the room every time he opens his mouth.
But even Dean specifically aside, TV referees err far too much on the side of supporting their mates. If in that example the referee had been given the information and then chosen to stop and award the goal, everyone knows Dean wouldn't have been sat there spouting "the law says...", he would have been bending over backwards to congratulate his former colleague on his common sense and use of the "spirit of law". It's naïve to think people can't see through that kind of hypocrisy.
Taking TV referees out of the loop and at least hearing it direct from the horses mouth removes that immediate scepticism - you're hearing the real reason, not what someone with a vested interest thinks they can spin the reason as. It doesn't need to convince everyone the referee is right 100% of the time to be a benefit.