Cambridge, UK:
A team of scientists working in the field of argumentology at Cambridge University yesterday revealed startling findings that could have wide-ranging implications for conversationalists and debaters the world over.
After an exhaustive 10-year study, the research group confirmed in a paper published in the journal Nature the presence in human minds of highly variable and occasionally unstable entities. These entities, called "opinions", apparently come in thousands, maybe even millions, of different forms, the head of the research group, Dr. Otto Humdinger, explained:
"While a single opinion may be shared by numerous different people, there will also be other competing and sometimes even conflicting opinions present in the minds of other people."
In the paper, Dr. Humdinger and his colleagues also claim that opinions appear to arise in at least two distinct ways, either being naturally present in a person's mind, or being implanted there as a consequence of exposure to the opinion in a direct human-human transfer. "It's the old nature vs. nurture question" Dr. Humdinger said.
However, by far the most controversial finding of the study has been the theory put forth that one person's opinion does not necessarily negate, nor even invalidate, another person's opposing and conflicting opinion. Dr. Humdinger claims that two opinions can co-exist in two different minds, without adverse consequences. Rival research groups at other universities have dismissed this notion as "weak" and described Dr. Humdinger and his colleagues as "full of shit". Dr. Meredith Flunky, of the University of Melbourne, dismissed the Cambridge team's claims as "so fucking gay", going on to add that if Dr. Humdinger and his colleagues ever came to Melbourne she would show them "an opinion they can't argue with - know what I mean?"
The debate looks set to continue.
