Yes you can argue with facts. In fact, the only thing you can argue with are facts.
What else do you intend to argue about? Whether Obama did or did not pass the healthcare bill? No.
You’re going to argue about the healthcare bill itself.
Will it make our country go bankrupt?
Does it prove that Obama is a socialist with evil communist aspirations?
Was there a different way to solve the problems in the healthcare industry?
When you’re in a discussion about a fact, you support your position with facts.
If the facts are questionable, or you bring reason to doubt the other side’s facts, then once again you’re arguing over facts (hopefully by invoking other facts).
So a list of facts without context doesn’t prove anything.
When you use statements like ‘these are facts’ as the clincher for your case, you’re just shutting down the argument. What you’re really saying is, “I think that my opinion is the only possible interpretation of these facts so I’m not gonna bother supporting my position or listening to yours. Because I’ve got the facts. So what you gonna say to that?”
It’s about the interpretation of the facts.
And that’s why the truth is so malleable.
Inspired by this article and by years of reading the news.