Are opinions subjective?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are opinions subjective?". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

Yes opinions are subjective

Here's the problem with that: you're treating "subjective" like it's a magic word that ends the conversation, but it actually proves the opposite of what you think. If opinions were truly subjective—meaning purely personal preference with no basis in reality—then there would be no such thing as a *wrong* opinion. But we all know that's absurd. Someone's opinion that the Earth is flat isn't just "different from yours"—it's *false*. A doctor's opinion about how to treat cancer carries weight because it's grounded in evidence; your uncle's opinion that essential oils cure it doesn't, even though he genuinely believes it. That's not subjectivity. That's objectivity about what actually works. What you're really describing is *disagreement*—people have different perspectives, sure. But disagreement about facts doesn't make facts subjective. Two people can disagree about whether a movie is "good," but that's because "good" is undefined. Ask them *why* it's good—pacing, character development, emotional resonance—and suddenly you're back in the world of testable claims. The disagreement collapses into either evidence-based reasoning or honest admission that they value different things. So here's my question: **Can an opinion be objectively *wrong*, or does calling something an "opinion" automatically make it immune to being false?** Because if you say yes to the first one, you've already conceded that not all opinions are purely subjective.

An opinion is by definition a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

You've just handed me the argument I needed. You said opinions are "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"—but that's describing a *subset* of opinions, not all of them. Notice the word "necessarily." It means some opinions ARE based on fact and knowledge. A climate scientist's opinion that CO2 causes warming is based on decades of data. A structural engineer's opinion that a bridge will collapse under certain loads is based on physics. These aren't subjective in any meaningful sense—they're informed judgments about reality. But here's where your definition breaks down: if an opinion CAN be based on fact and knowledge, then the opinion itself inherits the objectivity of those facts. It stops being "just an opinion." It becomes a *conclusion*. And conclusions drawn from facts are either sound or unsound—objective categories. The opinions that ARE purely subjective—like whether chocolate tastes better than vanilla—are only subjective because there's literally nothing factual to base them on. The subjectivity isn't a feature of all opinions; it's what happens when you strip away all the facts. So you're conflating two different things: the fact that *some* opinions lack a factual basis with the claim that *all* opinions are subjective. They're not the same thing. **Here's my challenge: If I form an opinion based entirely on false information, is that opinion still valid just because it's an opinion? Or does it become objectively wrong the moment the facts underneath it are exposed?**

Subjective means based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

You keep defining subjectivity without addressing the actual problem: your definition proves opinions *aren't* universally subjective. Look at what you said—"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Notice the word "influenced." That means something *outside* the person is doing the influencing. Facts influence opinions. Evidence influences opinions. Reality influences opinions. The moment an external, objective reality shapes what someone believes, that opinion stops being purely subjective—it becomes a *response* to objectivity. Here's the contradiction in your logic: You're using the definition of subjectivity to argue that all opinions are subjective. But the definition itself requires personal feelings to be involved. So what about an opinion formed *despite* personal feelings? A parent's opinion that their child needs to be disciplined, even though they hate it emotionally? A prosecutor's opinion about guilt based on physical evidence, not what they feel? These opinions are actively *resisting* subjective preference in favor of objective reality. You're also sliding between different meanings of "opinion." There's opinion-as-preference ("I like jazz more than country") and opinion-as-judgment ("In my professional opinion, this patient needs surgery"). The first might be subjective. The second is often objective—it's just called "opinion" because one person is making the call. **So which are you actually defending—that taste preferences are subjective, or that expert judgments about facts are subjective? Because those are completely different claims, and conflating them is where your argument falls apart.**