opinions can be wrong

First off, Con made a very vague statement that is not easy to tell if he were talking to myself or to the voters. Con claims that I dropped his argument, but in fact I did not. I also had examples as to why subjective opinions can also be wrong in the comment section and in my previous debate. Con claims that I can't win the definition debate when I have successfully debunked why it can still be wrong. Cons first paragraph doesn't prove anything and isn't promoting his case. "Con brings up Qualia. Qualia is a conscious experience [4], and an opinion is someones way of thinking therefore wouldn't a wrong opinion still be a conscious experience because they are aware of what they are thinking? Qualia then backfires on Con since an opinion is a person experience, but it is an awareness of their decision. It doesn't matter if someone knows a fact, if they say "In my opinion (Concluding that in their own thought) that Eggs are bigger than full-grown turkeys" they would be still be wrong because Facts> Opinions." Con claims that "A mouse is bigger than an elephant." is just stating an incorrect fact. Qualia fires back on con, Qualia is a state of consciousness. [1] Determining if something is bigger determines that the person is absolutely conscious, therefore would fall under Qualia proving my opponent wrong. Con claims that Qualia is a "real opinion" but fails to back up his information. Con has the burden of proof which he has failed to do so on the big claim. Con claims that something like "God exists" is not an opinion, but clearly it is. Qualia backfires on Con once again with the fact that determining whether something has to do with consciousness. If you can not think for yourself there would be no debate on whether God exists and everyone would either agree with one side or the other. Con claims that "Presidential polls argument is nonsensical." Someone voting is clearly subjective due to the fact that they, themselves, are voting for something and is using their opinions to decide who to vote for. Con says the brain interprets signals in different ways, which is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean their opinion is right. If a mentally insane person says the sun is falling, his opinion is clearly wrong since we are all still here, alive. Con uses a house situation, everyone should see it the same way, one may not describe it as a house but the results should be similar. Con claims, again, that I dropped their case, but as you can see by what I quoted that is not true. Con also claims that I have not presented any reasons why we should except my definitions. Con chose to ignore this entire paragraph: "Con claims that no opinion that can be contradicted, this is wrong. As the definition of Opinion says, an opinion is a belief/judgement. My judgement on something is that a mouse is bigger than an Elephant, but my judgement is not correct. Therefore, my opinion is not correct. The definition of opinion disagrees with cons claim that "That person would have just stated a wrong fact, not a wrong opinion as con claims." According to Merriam-Webster[1] an opinion does not have to be a fact, rather a belief of something. Anyone can believe anything, but not anything anyone beliefs is necessarily correct, if that makes sense." Con fails to understand that even with his definition, opinions branch out much further, he has failed to cover subjective and objective, hinting that objective could easily prove him wrong; whereas I have provided facts on both sides. It would be unfair to bring up new points. Con's definition backfired heavily against him and I have given examples as to why even with Qualia it can still be wrong. Good debate.