Can you give your own examples of factual and verbal quarrels? If conflicting facts give way to differing opinions and it is advantageous for one party to question them, a factual dispute is almost inevitable. The desire to win is an important driving force in conflicts and motivates each party to do everything to become the winner. Facts are often seen only as a means to an end, as strategic elements that must be manipulated to gain power. At the same time, uncertainty is a fact of all scientific work, even if scientists have no connection with particular interests. When scientists publish controversial work, it is widely criticized. Data are studied, experiments are reproduced, alternative theories are often proposed and debates arise. This process begins to show that one theory or explanation is better than another, but it can take a long time,[3] and can lead some to be skeptical of science in general, believing that scientists never agree. The media tend to offer interesting stories, exacerbating public misunderstanding by focusing on topics of disagreement. But in reality, scientists more often agree than they disagree. There are two main ways to resolve a purely verbal quarrel as soon as the different meanings of a key concept are highlighted. First, the various parties could agree not to agree on the use of the term. Thus, Teachers A and B could agree that they have provided two different definitions of « the best student », and that they are both legitimate, and they can agree that Cindy is the best student under one interpretation and that Betty is the best student under a different interpretation. A: Life begins with conception when a clear genetic definition of a new organism is established.

B: Such a life is not human, because humanity is the ability to think and feel. A serene debate usually requires some sort of fact-finding effort. Even if the parties to the conflict only agree to try to agree on the relevant facts by applying some sort of fact-finding strategy, this is a sign that the parties are sincere in their desire for better relations and are ready to set aside opposing tactics, and this is an important step towards consensus. Ultimately, it should be remembered that, in a conflict, the real objective is to improve relations between the parties to the conflict, which reduces the costs of conflicts and improves the chances of reaching consensus. This objective may not require agreement on the technical facts and a factual dispute can last for a long time. Parties interested in improving a conflict may need to move forward and do their best to improve the situation. For example, some people like eggs and others don`t like eggs. Those who love eggs would say that eggs are delicious, but those who don`t would be contradicting and saying that eggs don`t taste good. This is where they express their disagreement about their attitude towards eggs.

If two people give different answers to the question of whether eggs taste good or not, then the fact is that one of them likes its taste and the other does not like the taste.. . .