My friends and I are always having heated discussions over common subjects, such as politics, religion, social issues, etc.--sometimes it even gets personal--and it seems that we can never settle with an "agreement" to the subject. It's always "agree to disagree", which is understandable. However, this got me thinking. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I think the reason our debates tend to get heated (to that point where it starts to get "personal") is because we try to prove each other "wrong" or, more specifically, to prove ourselves "right". In the case of an argument, how could someone decide who's right and who's wrong? And I don't mean an argument that's actually factual (i.e. someone who thinks 2+2 is 5 as opposed to someone who knows the answer's 4), but when it comes to opinions and beliefs. How is something based on opinion considered "universally wrong", as in being gay? I've been reading some threads on here, and it seems as if when the thread is religious, and there is a religious person who tries to explain their religious beliefs, there are a lot of people who will try to prove the religious person's beliefs wrong. Is it really "fair" (for a lack of a better word) to say that the religious person, or their beliefs for that matter, are wrong, just based off of being logical, especially when no one really knows for sure? I don't want to start a huge discussion. I would just like some insight. When it comes to opinions and beliefs of any type, can a person have any type of merit to say that it's wrong?