Debate: Being 'Morally Right' Better Than Being 'Factually Correct'

This 'concept' (amusing enough) is a discussion that Ocasio-Cortez has dragged out of some university memory that she had, and used for a basis of our path ahead in the political sphere.

So, I'll ask some questions.

1.  Can you make any argument or discussion without facts?  Someone living in a fantasy world....wanting to argue that unicorns are faster than horses, could start a discussion.  Could it go anywhere?  If 'Bigfoot' were born in America, would he be able to run for President?  If 'Casper, the friendly ghost' were fat and chubby....would it be right to bully him along to lose weight?  Could the Coyote beat the Road Runner, in a fair fight?  All of these are discussions, without facts.  Arguments or discussions without facts....simply don't work.

2   Does being morally right win in every single argument?  It depends greatly on whose morales you intend to use.  There are often a hundred degrees of morales, and each one will go down a path that some people simply aren't devoted to or willing to attach themselves. 

3.  Do the two terms (morales versus facts) connect together?  You can make a case that it helps to have facts....to arrive at a decision, but you can also make the case that morales will drive the decision process.  It's like arriving to a raft after a ship sinking and it can only hold twelve people, while you have twenty people there in the water.  Eight of those people won't be able to do much other than float on the water and hang onto the side of the raft.  Facts generate the dilemma and the resolution.  Morally, you might be willing to overburden the raft with the twenty people, and help sink the raft in a quick fashion, so that fairness has been shared, and everyone now will have a zero chance of survival.  Morally, it's a positive thing that all have the same equal chance now of dying.

4.  Do you really want some Senator, Congressman, or President....yanking on your morales chain?  Most people can remember how the prohibition era went in 1920, and how that morales effort by the government led to an absolute failure.

5.  Finally, is O-C suggesting that facts might be downplayed, and their value marginalized?  This might worry some people because our lives are built, assembled, and layered with facts.  Our jobs only exist because companies have a record of predicting success with factual sales, and factual profits.  Our medical situations are mostly resolved because a doctor works with facts and prescribes the more predictable treatment for a positive outcome.  Could we even exist as a society, with less facts?  I have my doubts.

The problem I see here is that you have some 29-year old adults....with a university degree, who is trying hard to impress upon you that those years in college achieved something.  Sadly, the more she talks....the less convinced you are about her university background.