Earlier quoted context omitted.
But thats the problem. You can have two argument which are both true but politically only one of them can win. This is why we argue. Not because we are uniformed but because our perspectives are different and our perspectives are different because it affects us differently. And so the real danger here is to go along with this romantic notion that facts used to be more meaningful when in fact it was only that perspect…
> You can have two argument which are both true but politically only one of them can win. No you can't. This is why we are living in "post-truth". Meaning it's not truth anymore. You are right in that either one can win, but only one can be true.
Of course both sides can put forth true arguments in a political debate. I'm having a hard time coming up with a real world example, both because I don't want to push buttons that force you down a knee-jerk path on the button I push when I don't really care about it, and because we're really not used to seeing honest debates in the political arena.
But when society faces a decision A or B, each side can completely honestly tout the benefits of their decision and the costs of the other decision, both of which will exist. And God Almighty could come down from on high and hand us the exact, true, and full consequences of each decision, and those who benefit from one decision can completely honestly argue in its favor while those who may not benefit could completely honestly argue against it, which could be completely different sets of people for each decision. (There's almost never a decision that benefits everybody, even before we get into questions like relative amounts of benefit, or how society as a whole benefits.)
An argument containing elements of truth, or even somehow consisting entirely of truth, does not make it correct, because it still won't be the complete truth, which may well contain a superior argument for a different decision in it. But we don't have access to complete truth.