The philosopher David Chalmers gives the following crude and finite characterization of verbal conflicts: „Intuitively, it is a verbal quarrel between two parties when the two parties agree on the relevant facts on an area of concern and disagree only on the language used to describe this area. In such a case, there is a sense that the two parties „do not really disagree“, that is, they are not really divided on the area of concern and are divided only on language issues. Sidelle, A. (2007). The method of verbal dispute. Philosophical themes, 35 (1/2), 83-113. We should not require participants in a purely verbal confrontation to believe that they do not agree. On the one hand, they simply cannot be reflective enough to believe it. This should not deny that it is possible to further improve the MVD by clarifying more clearly the type of statement to be reported by the phrase of the „owing to“ explanation marker in MVD. It seems that there may still be cases similar to the Fred/Freda case, where there is a strange explanation link between the different languages of the parties and the emergence of differences of opinion, but in which we do not want to conclude that the parties are content with a verbal quarrel. However, we have at least made progress in excluding some of the more immediate problems of this type. There are two main ways to resolve a purely verbal quarrel when talking about the different meanings of a key term.
First, the various parties may not agree on the use of the term. For example, Teachers A and B might agree that they have provided two different pre-quote definitions of „best student,“ and that both are legitimate, and they may agree that Cindy is the best student under one interpretation and that Betty is the best student among another interpretation. Can you give your own examples of factual and verbal conflicts? This question has given rise to many metaphysical debates among some philosophers. But other philosophers and many non-philosophers have little patience for these questions. You are a blow to the verbal sophistry: we feel that we all know the facts, it is just a matter of deciding what exactly we hold under „identity“ and how we want to describe those facts. Many other philosophical questions are equally flat, but perhaps to varying degrees: what is free will? What does that mean? What is an action? What is a law? What is art? In general, many „What X“ questions create the feeling that they are little or purely verbal. Ban now the „art“ of discussion. Can we find another sentence on which A and B disagree? It doesn`t look like it – they both know it`s just a screenshot, that it was sold for an impressive price, and how many skills it takes to type those words with a keyboard or find the words.