Knowing What You’re Hearing: Why Most Arguments Miss the Point

There are generally three things people say every day—observations, facts, and opinions

Most arguments persist because we confuse one for the other.

Take football.

“Bukayo Saka puts in a lot of crosses.” 

"Justin Trudeau introduced a lot of policies that favoured immigrants" 

That’s an observation. Someone watched matches or followed JT policies and noticed a pattern. That's OK as long as you respect this. 

“Saka has put in 55 crosses this season.” 

"Justin Trudeau has spent $200bn (imaginary) on social policies or programs" 

That’s a fact. It’s measurable, verifiable, and doesn’t care how anyone feels. That's OK as long as you recognize and understand this. 

"Saka’s crosses are to no one in particular, like someone claiming activity without results.”

" JT policies are bad and didn't impact anyone"

That’s an opinion. It carries judgment, interpretation, and bias. That's OK as long as you recognize and acknowledge this. 

Problems, disagreements, and ultimately veiled and direct insults fly when we respond to the wrong category. 

Same happens with political conversations not just football. 

If someone makes an observation and you reply with a fact, you’re not correcting them. You’re talking past them thereby triggering the desire in them to counter and talk past you in the belief that it's the person who is loudest and has the last word that "wins". While this may seem true, we neglect the fact that such wins cause us to lose ourselves. 

If someone offers an opinion and you counter with another opinion dressed up as a fact, you escalate the disagreement instead of clarifying it. God forbid we show weakness by making important clarifications. Lol. 

Most online arguments aren’t about truth; they’re about misalignment fostered by the desperate and inherently irrelevant need to win or be right. 

An observation doesn’t always require a rebuttal. Sometimes it simply requires a simple acknowledgment.

“Yes, that does seem to be happening.”

The modern instinct, especially online, is to win, not to understand. Everyone rushes to prove they’re right or more knowledgeable even when no one has actually disagreed. 

This is why conversations feel tense for no reason.

Someone says what they see. Another person hears a challenge, loads up an ICBM, calls out the drones and start shooting. Simultaneously, defenses go up. Facts get weaponized as bullets and opinions harden. 

The core issue: the original point, gets buried, forgotten. Who cares about that? It was just the trigger. 

Learning to identify what kind of statement you’re responding to is an underrated social skill that many people should have and already have but fail to utilize because of bias. Using this skill saves energy, reduces friction, and keeps discussions productive. 

More importantly, it teaches restraint: not every statement is an argument invitation. This is what I am currently practicing. The clarity it brings is otherworldly. 

The platforms we go back and forth on surreptitiously train our minds to argue endlessly so we stay on the platform longer and can see ads and other etc😂😂. 

In certain circumstances, the wisest response isn’t a counterpoint.

It’s silence or agreement or a simple, “That’s an interesting observation.”

If more people learned that, we’d argue less, not because we agree more, but because we’d finally be addressing the right thing.

All the above makes sense until bias steps in and say whoosai! Why would I let you recognize any of the above when I stand gidigba🤣🤣🤣🤣

Selah!