Temporary Overload posted:

Two rational people can take the same set of facts and use similar lines of logic to come to radically different conclusions, which should not be possible in a coherent system. The disagreement arises because all people start with fundamental assumptions about values which are either too vague or too intangible to be rationally debatable. "Freedom vs Safety" is a pretty classic example of an argument in which both sides can be equally honest, informed, and rational, and have there be no clear way to come to any sort of agreement aside from "well, it depends on the situation." What topic can we find that has no arbitrary value-based component, yet is subject to debate, i.e. considerations aside from basic facts and figures?