“Two pundits want to discuss the political ramifications of an event. Pundit #1 (let’s call him Jack) makes an alleged statement of fact about the event. Pundit #2 (let’s call her Jill) disagrees, and alleges that the truth of what transpired is something else entirely. In this case, these aren’t subjective claims, these are claims of fact, about something that reasonable people could agree on were the evidence presented to them. Just to be clear, this isn’t something like ‘Obama is a communist,’ where there are endless opportunities for nuance, obtuseness, and subjective interpretation. This is something that could be objectively determined. And now Jack and Jill have made opposing statements of fact about the matter. This is an impasse. One of two things should happen: Jack and Jill should investigate the matter and find out who is mistaken (it must be one of them, but could even be both of them), or they should move on to a topic where the basic facts are not in dispute.” (>>)