Note that your two ideas don’t necessarily contradict. It is possible both for hurt people to hurt people, for hurt people to be meek, and for stronger people to hurt people, all in the same world; it obviously depends on the person.
Buddhists do not necessarily have to prove every proposition they hear to be true or false. In fact, it often does the opposite; see for example how in the Aggivacchagotta Sutta, it is claimed that a Buddha is neither ‘reborn’, ‘not reborn’, ‘reborn and not reborn’, nor ‘neither reborn nor not reborn’.
In practice, try to meditate on these apparent contradictions. They may resolve themselves into a synthesis; you may find that your lived experience is warped by your perception; or even you might find that you completely disagree, which is fine! ‘Agreeing with every last sentence a monk has ever said’ is not a requirement to reach enlightenment.
Finally, from the Dhammavandana:
Well communicated is the Teaching of the Richly Endowed One,
Immediately Apparent, Perennial,
Of the Nature of a Personal Invitation,
to be understood individually, by the wise.
We may particularly flag up ‘immediately apparent’ as an issue with your problem here, but was the teaching behind the example immediately apparent? It may be, even if you disagree with the way it was explained.