'facts' are not objective

Good day to you all. I will be taking the the role of Pro, I am in the affirmative that 'facts' are not objective. This debate is round in total, for each Pro and Con to make a one shot attempt at the objectivity of facts. To begin some definitions - [1] objective [2] fact I have heard and read many times that you 'cannot argue with fact' - well I am here to say you can, and should. A lot of objective facts are true at the moment and cannot be argued against because there is not yet another fact to stand against it, there will always be a get out clause for things which are rules and have decisive statements about the nature of things. I am not arguing this against things like nouns, I can accept a table is a table, it is a labeled term used to describe a certain something....For now :P A personal example I would like to give, which some people may be able to relate to is as follows - I was in High School studying physics in my science class, the teacher gave three examples of the states of molecules in either a gas, liquid of solid form. It followed that gas particles are spaced far apart and travelling at a higher speed than a liquid, which isn't spaced as far apart but gives it motion enough to move above and adapt to the shape of its container or place of rest. Molecules in a solid were packed together in uniform rows and this is why solids are in a turgid/rigid structure. Now that part of learning was going to be over, done with, if you say the right thing on the test as you've been taught, great, test passed. Then I asked - if the part regarding solids is correct, why does water expand when it turns into ice? He explained, I checked it and it was true, water when frozen does expand as the molecules in ice are aligned differently. Why was I told that molecules in a solid are in such uniformity when they clearly always aren't? Why was I subjected to be being told this as fact by my teacher, the text book in front of me and soon a test paper with grades pending on me regurgitating this pseudo truth? [5] Not the exact info I had before, but the images are accurate. Isn't it always 'I' before 'E' except after 'C'? Hello the word 'SCIENCE'! Do you remember the good ol' days when the Sun used to go round the earth? Was a pretty good fact of how our little solar system worked, wouldn't you agree? Then enter the Heliocentric theory[3] Suddenly the 'fact' had changed, trumped by a new, better, bigger and shinier 'fact'. If I may amend and edit a term used by Douglas Wilson - "But this is just a provisional judgment. Our perspective may evolve to an entirely different one some years hence,"[4] The quote is taken from a religious debate pertaining to morals, but it works when transplanted into this category. You can be 100% right, right now for this moment, but do not condescend with the arrogance to assume it will last! To do so would be to claim that 'facts' are infinite, yet we know them not to be. It stems through all realms of discovery; an example of this is that the atom was thought to be the smallest thing, then it was the proton & electron, then an Up Quark/Down Quark. It is so systemic that things are so temporary in terms of them being foundational to our understanding. You would not build a home of unsafe foundations, so why build schools of learning on them? Over to you Con. "Facts are many, but the truth is one." - Rabindranath Tagore [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.christianitytoday.com... [5] http://www.docbrown.info...