People argue because no statement ever accurately describes reality. I am going with the following assumptions:
- the goal of a conversation is to arrive at an accurate description of reality
- it is easier to observe deviation from reality than to articulate it
Clarification: For example, you and I observe a color and discuss its shade. Assume that the shade is a 5 out of 10 where 0 is black and 10 is white. Neither you, nor I have the ability to recognize a 5. At the same time, whatever the other party says, we are able to see that the other party is incorrect and we can respond in an effort to bring us closer to reality. So how how does the debate progress?