Yes, but then you limit the SCOPE and BOUNDS to just the topic of the conversation at hand! And then suddenly… it becomes a much simpler discussion. Because of the concept of Ontology, if the discussion is at the societal level, the facts have to be society level facts. If the argument is at the individual level, you use single examples and explore the possibilities that branch from the one case. But more often than not I see a right wing person talking about his lived experience using very poor wording and insufficient formulation, arguing with a left wing person who is talking in systemic realities and predictable reasoning, arguing that the generalized system applies perfectly uniformly to all people as if they were a monolith.

If I remember my old math and physics, it would look like the cross product of two vectors as the two conversations they are actually having, and the resultant reality of no actual understanding or communication took place.

AxB = M (the vector result representing the misunderstanding that occurred.)

EDIT:

I had an LLM translate my weirdo brain native tongue into normal words. I’ll try and develop this skill now that I am aware of it.