Opinions are facts.

However, I will not accept that this debate is a semantic one, as my opponent claims. I wrote the following in the first round: "I would like to establish common ground. If an individual accepts this debate, he or she will need to use the same definition I am using of 'fact'. " Therefore, my opponent must accept my definition of "fact. " RebuttalsAs a reminder, this is not a semantic debate. We must use the same definition of "fact. " In fact, a huge portion of my opponent's argument is true, but it uses another definition of "fact. " Rebuttal One: "Existence Is Not Synonymous With Factuality" He begins to argue that existence is not synonymous with factuality. According to the definition I provided, it is actually. "One would be hard-pressed to claim that existence guarantees fact. Existence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the fact or state of existing; actual possession of being. This debate is, however, not about whether opinions exist or are real. This debate is whether opinions are facts. " I believe my opponent somewhat misunderstood this debate. This debate is not about the truth of opinions. It is about the existence of these opinions and how the brain functions. It is about how the world works. It is about how humans gather information from our environments and forge opinions. It is about the processes in the brain. As I said in my arguments, the process of forging an opinion and being taught a "fact" is essentially the same, when it comes to the quantum level. "His definition claims that facts must both truly exist and that they must have actual existence. " That is one of the definitions of "fact", the one I am using. My opponent needs to realize that there are many definitions of "fact". Most words have more than one definition. Facts, according to one definition, are true pieces of information. Another is that they exist and are real. That is the definition I am using and the one this debate requires my opponent to use. Rebuttal Two: "Opinions Are Not Always True"I would like to define "true" now as well. In fact, Merriam-Webster offers three definitions. I will list two of them. "agreeing with the facts : not false"or"real or genuine"I will indeed use the second definition, the one this debate intends to use. My opponent uses the other, while greatly misinterpreting this debate. When my opponent uses the other definition, there is a major paradox. In my arguments, I showed that "fact" and "proven" are not 100% synonyms. The human brain uses very complex processes in order to forge memories and knowledge. Whether something is a "fact" - a paradox, I presume - or an "opinion", the process is essentially the same: neuron connections are forged, the brain obtains information through the senses, and we forge perceptions of something or someone based on those observations. ConclusionThis is clearly not a semantic debate. I believe this should be evident if you have read my opening statements in the first round. My opponent's arguments are mainly true, but, again, they use the other definition of "fact" the one this debate does not intend to use. I believe the main disagreement between my argument and my opponent's is definitions. But, as I have said before, this is not a semantic debate. I hope this is clear. If there is any confusion - from the viewers, voters, and my opponent - please make me know. I want to be as clear as I possibly can. I believe everything should have been evident after having read the first round, but that does not seem to be the case. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. I hope he realizes this is not a semantic debate. Works Cited1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...