Can you win an argument with only opinion?

No, but isn't the point to express an opinion? I think I can lose an argument to an individual who is wrong, which means, of course, that I can also win an argument and be wrong.
The biggest bores are those who only want to win (not to learn or share).

Opinions are euphemisms for "excuses".

What someone believes in typically based upon facts or stats.

So yes you can win an argument with only opinion, because opinion is a folder that contains facts and stats. Whether or not somebody agrees with you or not, is irrelevant to the truth.

For instance: Two plus Two equals Four. It is an opinion, based on accepted beliefs, that two and two make four. You can also say it is a fact. However, that does not mean somebody can't argue you and say "No, two and two equals five."

Have you ever once in your life, heard of a case in Law where, during the closing arguments, either the Defense or Prosecuting attorney said "People of the jury, your honor, the other lawyers evidence was so damn good that I agree with them"

Nope. Both attorney's will use the closing argument to try and continue their point, like a bunch of stubborn little kids.

An argument for why two plus two equals five. Is that, in this person's understanding, two actually means two and a half of one. Both people have their own opinion, yet both see it as a fact in their mind.

The only way to convince the person that two and two is four. Is to either write it numerically "2" in order to prevent the defining of "two" to be based on an individuals accepted understanding. If that does not work, one must use physical pieces, and yet, one could still hold an opinion that you are wrong and they are right.

No, Science is not a matter of opinion - it's a matter of objectivism.

How one interprets science is an opinion. An argument requires 2 people with an opposing view on an understanding. How they interpret their medium for communication is where the discrepancies are found.

One does not argue that there is a moon visible in the night sky; however, one may interpret "moon" to mean something different than another.

It is not science that we argue; it is our inability to communicate properly that causes our arguments.

Science is how the Universe works.

If you're interpreting how it already works, then CLEARLY YOUR BRAIN DOESN'T WORK.

Interpretation is Language.

2 means nothing until you understand and accept that it means 1 and 1.

How is it that an actual apple from a tree can be interpreted as "Apple"?

is the word "Apple" science? NO, it is an interpretation of an actual apple in order to be understandable through communication from one to another. It is through these accepted understandings of communications of the interpretations of science that arguments follow.

Labels are not Science, Victor.

Labels are just an unstable form of communication, hence labels have done nothing except sever the language of the Universe from the language of Us.

I am well aware of the language games - the thing is, I am talking about the THING IN ITSELF, not the stupid names we give it that mean nothing except what meaning we've ascribed to it.

Fine; but the topic was about an argument. and an argument requires language and communication.

No, an argument requires one thing and only one thing: An argument within an argument within an argument within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within within an argument within to argue for the sake of arguing an argument so one can argue just to argue.

Therefore there is truth and there is the enemy of truth: "argument".

Truth has a friend, and it's called "questioning".

Truth has another friend, and it's called "madness".

Madness has a friend, and it's called "seeing the world's madness".

A wise man's madness is not his own madness - it's the madness of those around him.

You should be aware that those, like you, who understand some of the contextual and constructive mechanisms of language, are in a minority on A2K. You are unlikely to get through to "naive realists", or to those who think dictionary definitions are axiomatic. (You should of course ignore the pedantry we have been inflicted with of late )

Dictionaries?

Or Distinctionaries?

lets keep it tame, people.

Basiclly when we're in a prober argument we tend to you Ethos, Logos and Phatos, when we form our arguments. Arguments based on Phatos is full of emotions, and personality. If you're good with words it's possible to win alot of arguments using only pathos. So yeah, you can win an argument using just your opinion - no facts! (:

Everytime I combine two objects with two objects I end up with the empirical "law-like conclusion":they amount to four objects.
On the other hand isn't "two plus two" just another way of saying "four"?

You are all idiots.

Everyone but you? Hmmmm.

Aristotle's rhetorical categories (Ethos, Logos and Pathos) were an early attempt to look at some of the contextual aspects of communication. But with respect to this medium (written forums) we should remember that Aristotle was concerned with spoken exchanges in which pathos is transmitted to a large extent through paralinguistic features (gestures, voice tone etc). So ironically, this fact implies that the answer to the "argument" about whether "you can win an argument without facts" maybe be "NO" here, but "YES" in oral communication.

All phenomena by means of formula, is that by any means true understanding

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

a view or judgment formed about something, {not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.}