Facts,Opinions, and Argumentation.

by Jabril Power

All definitions are cited from Merriam-Websters online dictionary: Opinion: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter Fact: the quality of being actual Argument: a: the act or process of arguing b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion Arguing: to contend or disagree in words Facts: a (1) : the state of being the case : (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts.

I. Capacities of Facts and Opinions

Typically, when people say they believe something is Good when referring to any kind of artwork, or creation that is not capable of making moral decisions, they regard that as their opinion and would say that anyone else who thought something was Good was their opinion. Since people have these beliefs or opinions, I will conclude that all these opinions are inherently false because something that cannot make moral decisions cannot be bad or good. Your favorite movie or favorite song doesnt have the capacity to make moral decisions. Neither does an athletic team in whatever league you decide to examine when considering their competitive performance. Any discussion engaged in examining whether or not something is good or bad must be examining something that can make moral decisions. Based on the definitions provided, if something does not have the capacity to make moral decisions then all those arguments are inherently false. This something can never be good or bad. Now you may respond and say that people just misuse these words Good and Bad and really just substitute those words when discussing whether or not something is Enjoyable. If
1

something being good is really just modern-day slang for something that is enjoyable then arguments regarding whether or not it is good or bad will always be false. This is the case because no one can argue whether or not you enjoy something. Gaining pleasure from something is completely your individual, conscience decision. Your enjoyment of something is not an opinion, if you say that you enjoy something or gain pleasure from something, and that statement so happens to be true, then that is Fact. And what is fact cannot be argued. To go even further, you may begin to realize that often times today, the meanings of words Bad and Good are becoming too vague. If were discussing something that doesnt have the capacity to make moral decisions and I say that X is Good, what are we substituting Good for? Perhaps we are suggesting that X is the strongest currently or the fastest currently. Perhaps I am saying that X is the bestselling, or maybe Im suggesting that X is the most artistically creative. Does that mean that it tastes well? Does that mean it tastes the best? Is Good the best? Then again, what does it really mean to be The Best? What do you REALLY mean when you say something without the capacities to make moral decisions is Good? Perhaps you just mean that its something that is merely enjoyable. If something is true to you on the individual level then it becomes what I will call an Individual Truth. I would define an individual truth as something that may not be necessarily true for anyone except the individual examining that truth. Some may say X is Good, while really meaning X is enjoyable. If that statement is true, it will be on the individual level. You, as the individual feel enjoyment from X: these are individual truths. A Universal Truth, truths that are true to all things in existence, and not just to the individual examining those truths, often have statements grounded in ideas of what something is and will be (certainty), instead of something that may be inconsistent and uncertain like ones feelings. An example of a Universal Truth would be, X is

good. One must define X and what moral standards they are using to define what is Good or Bad (moral and immoral). If X applies to whatever set standards of being moral or Immoral then it is a Universal Truth and isnt just true to the individual examining that truth. When trying to understand someones justification for enjoying something that doesnt have the capacity to make moral decisions, you must ask more specific questions. With further investigation, you may actually get an answer to your question instead of a response that doesnt answer your interpretation of your flawed question. In order to get a well thought out answer to your question, you must have a well thought out question to start.

II. An Argument The purpose of an argument as defined is to come to a conclusion or a reasonable judgment, to come to a solution at the root in the tree of argumentation, where each branch symbolizes an argument, statement, or idea. There is a common misconception today that an argument is about one of the parties engaged in the argument to win that argument, which, in turn, causes the party of the opposing side to lose the argument. Under this format, one party is right (correct) while the other is wrong (incorrect). In reality, an argument is actually about discovering or coming to terms with truths, and not necessarily winning a particular stance or side. An effective argument is really about understanding the truths in both positions and promotes coming to a middle ground, not about being absolutely correct or incorrect. If this observation about arguments was more widely understood then that would result in more conflicting, arguing parties to clarify standards, definitions, and perspectives first, that way more people could find out what are exactly the facts (under certain definitions or perspectives). For example, if one sets all standards and definitions in the beginning of a conversation then one can

clearly evaluate if whatever you're examining falls under your standards and definitions that are set. If you were to claim, Leonardo DaVinci is one of the most influential artist that we have record of., whether or not that statement is true, it is surely more easy to evaluate (assuming you have a clear definition for what is influential is) then Leonardo Davinci is one of the best artist that have ever lived. With clearer standards, both parties can understand what is being evaluated. If arguments were looked at in that light, then parties would understand the purpose of argumentation. We cannot argue facts, because they are already true. And we cannot argue an opinion because they are merely individual views that lack factual backing. We can only argue to evaluate ideas. III. Problems with an Argument (Conclusion) Lets say I saw your sister out and about one day and I say to you, Hey I saw your sister yesterday, shes pretty fat. and you, being the sibling you are, honestly dont think that your sister has gotten fat at all respond saying, No she isnt fat at all, your brother is fatter than her! This is how most modern arguments begin: One party makes a statement that is actually an opinion (because it lacks factual backing) and presents it as a Universal Truth. The other party immediately gets defensive because someone else has challenged their idea of what is True. This sometimes results in personal attacks and statements that completely steer away from the original statement. The situation presented above is one that has no standards set by either party because I (in the example) failed to present them and you were too emotionally blind to realize that I didn't set them, so you got right into attacking me on the personal level. Instead you should be asking, What does that mean that my sister is fat? Can anyone actually be fat or can a person only look fat? Is fatness obesity? Or is that anything over 200 lbs.?

Because we have no clear understanding of what standards either party are using to evaluate the situation, the conversation at this point can go in a number of directions. At this point, there is literally no control over the conversation or argument at all. The conversation can only be made topical again by someone who is rational and logical and is willing to reevaluate this discussion from the very beginning. Truths are all in how we as individuals interpret things. What statement may be true to some individual may be false to someone else. An argument should have the objective of establishing how we will interpret things in the discussion. If these terms arent established, then the two parties might never actually have a clash in their discussion at all. Arguments should be looked at in terms of gaining understanding of a topic or issue. Instead there is a common misconception that arguments are about taking sides and winning. Society, as a whole, does not truly know how to argue. We are blinded and split by sides, which only separates us even further and limits our general capacity of understanding. Since most arguments today are just a rush of two or more parties that don't have an understanding and lack clarity of their opposing side, this can sometimes result in overaggressive, unhealthy, and sometimes physical conflict. This occurs when one or both parties feel threatened by the direction or progression of conversation or just cant handle criticism. These unhealthy experiences are rarely ever topical to the original argument unless one of the parties is threatened by the actual information or presentation of that information. If people adhered to having topical conversations and evaluations then there would be no need for such unhealthy conflict. Personal attacks in the heat of a discussion can often times be too vague. Things like, You're stupid! or You dont know anything! are criticisms that can make an individual upset.

If you are one of these people, then you are vulnerable and weak (Weak- 1: lacking strength: as a : deficient in physical vigor b : not able to sustain or exert much weight, pressure, or strain c : not able to resist external force or withstand attack d : easily upset or nauseated) to harsh, vague, often times non-topical, criticism that lacks reasoning. And if these personal criticisms are not topical they are usually only said to trigger an exciting response from the person being criticized. What types of criticism are you vulnerable to? Are you strong enough mentally to not be distracted in conversation by personal statements that have no relevance? Or are you an individual that allows the person who makes a criticism with the intent to excite you, actually succeed in doing so? In addition, if you are one who gets emotional or negatively excited by those with generally opposing ideas, especially those that are vague, you are also mentally weak(Especially if you are excited before even getting a clear understanding of the other persons views or interpretations).All words are metaphors and are an extension of you. Instead of trying to enforce your interpretations as universal law, you should instead set standards and be a learner. Are you vulnerable to attack or is your mind stronger than that? Embrace the concept of not knowing and always be willing to completely change your viewpoints (opinions) at any time. If you want to know what I enjoy, do not ask me what is good. Ask me about what I enjoy, and you shall learn more about me and how I see the world. All of what I have stated is held together by standards and definitions. It is not a good or bad analysis nor is it an opinionated piece. It is an observation grounded by laws. And this is fact.