Except political debates are based in difference of opinion. There's no such thing as difference of opinion with facts. There's true and false. Fact or fiction. You can't have an opinion about that.
You can absolutely have a difference of opinion with fact. It's all in the interpretation.
Fact: The earth appears flat when you look out the window. Interpretation #1: The earth must be flat.
Interpretation #2: You ain't seein' all of it. This entire debate is the result of an interpretation of a handful of observations, complete or incomplete. There are basic scientific facts which everyone can agree on- it's the conclusions drawn from those facts which make all the difference.
Example:
Poisson's Spot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spotFact: Shine a light at a ball, and you get a light spot in the middle of the shadow. Interpretation #1: This applies to the earth. If it were round, light would bend around the globe and it would never be dark.
Interpretation #2: This does not apply to the earth because specific circumstances of the experiment are not able to be replicated, (Point light source as opposed to a star, smooth surface, and fresnel's equasion has to be exact) and thus has no bearing on the shape of the earth. Now, that being said- you are correct if you start to drill down and present factual evidence that is irrefutable and not really open to interpretation.
Fact: The circumstances in the Poisson's Spot experiment need to be exact in order for it to be successfuly replicated. Interpretation #1:
Interpretation #2: Correct.Facts the world over, be they political, scientific, economical, or otherwise, will usually be interpreted and possibly spun- to meet the needs of whomever is presented the data.
I'm not arguing with you so much as justifying my analogy.