I say that opinions can only be recognized as far as some senses are concerned. Taste, smell (does it smell good or bad), color appreciation (do you like the color of blue, for example), sense of humor, and the list goes on. With this list being not all inclusive, I expect you to understand the types of things I consider to be "opinion." Basically, all things that cannot be rationally explained, where it is impossible to find a universal answer. So, in the case of colors, it cannot be explained - it cannot be reasoned - that a certain color must trump another in any terms. What does this leave us with? Well I think it leaves us (yes, I know, it's ironic because i'm saying "I think") with everything else - everything that can be reasoned - being an objective issue. This leads me to understand that with many "controversies," every single "opinion" out there is simply an input given by the user to represent his thoughts on the matter, unless their input is right (if the input is right, it's a Truth). What we consider to be an "opinion" on a matter is simply a result of an incomplete understanding of the circumstances involving the matter (or the "controversy"). The opinion, then, is simply a misguided, and therefore incorrect, understanding of the "controversy." The idea came up because I've read a lot of controversies and sh1t that seemed to be aimlessly debated. Of course we debate to defend what we think to be true, and in doing so we use reason and logic to support our claims. I just think that, theoretically, if one could present a summation of EVERY point to be considered in a "controversy" the reasoning behind one side of the argument would ultimately trump the other(s). This means that in every "controversy" there is a Truth. In the end, the "controversy" was just a term used to describe a situation where an understanding of the circumstances were limited or warped. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? :D