"Check the facts up front?" or
"Opinions differ, facts scientifically found don't"

Please improve both for me

There is difference between out of ass opinion and informed opinion.
Science can change its facts when new evidence arise, but see the new reality must be coherent with the old.
So the new fact must contain the old facts.
Newtonian physics is a special case (low energy, speed, mass, acceleratioms) of Einstein physics.

I really depends on the topic. There is no arguing about mathematical or logical things. "2+2=4" is true. If someone has the opinion that it is false that someone is plain wrong. The truth of this claim relies on the definitions of the symbols (or words) involved.
Then there's empirical claims. Things that rely on what sentient being can observe. You can disagree on what the facts are if you for instance have different information. But you shouldn't just ignore the facts the other side is talking about but either try to "disprove" it or show how it might not be relevant.
Another category of claims are those whose truth does not rely on the definition of words or on empirical fact like "Blue is a beautiful color" or "murder is morally wrong". The truth of those claims is based on the opinion of someone regarding this issue. You would need "emotional" arguments to convince someone of those claims.

Just as a little correction: Facts don't change. The interpretation of those facts changes.

I’ve no idea how to answer because I can’t quite understand the question. I’m a bit dim.

I go with my gut feelings and they are usually right.

Whew ! I read all the responses. I discuss things and if it resonates with me ,I will look into it more. If it doesn’t; I keep it moving. Harmony for me is: accepting that all of our perspectives are different, and accepting that I don’t need to prove things to anyone, or try to break down anyones views. I will of course engage one on their views , and see where it goes.

I can't tell what you mean by what you wrote. I think that very few people regularly check each others facts. I think that very few people know how to check facts. Often people cite articles that don't even support their position, if they cite anything at all.

There is no such thing as 100% objective truth or facts. There are only probabilities. Many of those approach 100% at least for practical purposes, so that doesn't mean we need 100% certainty to accomplish anything.

Ironically religion's main raison d'etre is to provide (fake) certitude to those who seek it (by asserting things as fact without substantiating them as fact), and science is the epistemological approach that accepts uncertainty and constantly weighs available data and understanding, changing its views on how likely things are to be true, all the time. That doesn't prevent it from having explanatory frameworks that are considered settled and proven, but even those things are refined for edge cases and new circumstances and applications.

Human thought, properly disciplined and organized and committed to intellectual integrity, strives to have an increasingly accurate model of reality, but epistemological humility requires that we acknowledge the inherent limitations and imperfections in our thought processes.

What is a scientific fact?
What we know in science changes because we question and study it. You don't hear scientists referring to their findings as facts.

Some things are not fact based. What is right and wrong? What is the better choice based on fact?
That opinion gives me the impression that you don't like to hear versions of the truth that you don't agree with. I don't. It pisses me off sometimes. I'm not always right though.

Who gets to decide what the facts are?

can you be specific? opinions are not allowed WHERE? in what context? of course opinions are allowed -- when they're expressed as opinions and not presented as, or mistaken for, facts.

sorry, those phrases don't mean anything to me. the first one could be improved and the second one isn't even true, since scientific results may vary (with variables lol). so... nope, won't be using those. i'll be adapting my responses to whatever it is i am responding to!

g