However, there are situations in which the parties involved have to choose a certain interpretation. For example, there can only be one award that can be awarded to the best student, and so it is necessary to choose between the two definitions to decide whether Cindy or Betty should receive the award. So this is the second way to resolve a verbal dispute involving two definitions – we choose to adopt a particular definition by looking very carefully at the function it is supposed to perform. If, in the example discussed, you have to choose between the definitions of teachers A and B, which definition will you choose and why? Can you give your own examples of factual and verbal arguments? So who is right and who is wrong? In a way, both teachers are right because they seem to be working with two different definitions of “best students.” For Teacher A, the best student is the one with the highest average grade. For teacher B, the best student is the one with the highest number of A grades. Obviously, the student who meets the first definition does not necessarily have to be the same as the student who meets the second definition. This is an example of what we might call a purely verbal argument, where the apparent disagreement is not due to disagreements about the facts, but to the different understanding of the meaning of a key term or concept. There are two main ways to resolve a purely verbal dispute once the different meanings of a key term are emphasized. First, the various parties could agree not to agree on the use of the term. Thus, Teachers A and B could agree that they have provided two different more precise definitions of “the best student”, and that both are legitimate, and they can agree that Cindy is the best student according to one interpretation and that Betty is the best student under a different interpretation.
Verbal disputes are often opposed to factual disputes, where disagreements relate to different opinions about facts rather than meaning. If someone thinks Sydney is the capital of Australia and others disagree, then the disagreement is factual. Discovery is the ability to get confused by simple things. .