Arguments, Discussions, and Evidential Support

I've always been an advocate of an individual making up his or her own mind about any subject or issue. While arguments are engaging experiences, friendly discussions, I believe, are more fruitful in the end. An argument tends to force one to change thier opinion, it puts them on the defense, it proves them "wrong," it makes them submit. However in a discussion when you are talking about various issues, admitting to certain truths, and tossing around ideas, the "end-result," the final decision about something remains your choice to make. It isn't an agressive experience, it is a peaceful experience where someone isn't forced to make up his or her mind about something (since I believe it perfectly ok to have an un-made up mind).

So - Where am I going with this? I believe that there are some basic truths about all situations. However, every decision usually has a lot more than two answers. A lot of people would like to argue for the sake of a "right/wrong" mentality. However, if I've learned anything in my time here at college, it is that there is no such thing. Problems, Dillemmas, Issues never have an easy straight forward answer. There are always multiple parts to the story, about the speaker, the interpreter, the situation, everything affects the final decision. In the end, the decision must be up to the individual, as the decision must rest well with that person and for whom that person claims responsibility.

Sure, Evidence adds something to the story of every dillema. Every argument has evidence, tangible and non-tangible support for a side or an idea. However, I've found that evidence hardly ever points to a final conclusion. It may refute one issue while creating another. Or support one problem and another problem at the same time. Life is not in a courtroom. Our (humanity) issues are multi-dimensional. Surely, if simple evidence easily supported a quick and universal final answer - there would no longer be any problems.