Does the Statement “There are No facts, only Opinions” disprove it self?

Is the statement a fact or opinion? ;)

I can see how it would qualify as conflicting conditions. There's no "position from nowhere" you can argue from in philosophy - you must always start with some assumptions. Claiming there are no facts is itself a fact about knowledge...

Perhaps there's some context we're both missing, or there's a more defensible version of the claim. In practice though, I think most people would realise that the unqualified version - "there are no facts" - is self-refuting.

This is similar to the "nothing is certain" claim where one will respond, often with a hint of snark, "are you certain about that??" This is only a logical problem if one says, "I am certain that nothing is certain." Likewise, if someone were to say, "It is a fact that there are no facts, only opinions," then we would be dealing with a logical inconsistency. However, I would give the person the benefit of not being a complete moron, and assume what they mean is that they are well aware that what they are claiming is an opinion.

It is fine to ask the person who says this, "So that is just your opinion, correct?" or something similar, and leave it there. This will, in my opinion, leave you with the rhetorical "win." If they do answer by saying it is a fact, then you have a clear case of conflicting conditions .

The statement, “There are No facts, only Opinions,” or a variation of that statement is an excellent example of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. So, let’s go through that common fallacy step-by-step. The fallacy is more complicated than it first appears.

According to the Britannica Dictionary, an opinion is “a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something: what someone thinks about a particular thing.” The Britannica Dictionary distinguishes that from the definition of fact, saying a fact is “something that truly exists or happens: something that has actual existence.” And, the Britannica Dictionary definition of a concept is “an idea of what something is or how it works.”

A concept is “stolen” when one asserts a concept while denying or ignoring its epistemological or genetic roots. 

Can one posit a concept while denying the concept’s genetic roots? Logically, of course, one cannot do this. For example, one cannot discuss the concept of an orphan while denying the concept of parents.

The same principles apply here with “There are No facts, only Opinions.” 

Just as one cannot discuss an orphan while denying the concept of parents, one cannot claim as a fact that facts do not exist because that makes the proposition “there are no facts” not only internally contradictory because it is claiming the statement is factually true, but claims existence qua existence (the parents) does not exist, but the orphan does. It is to “steal” the concept of existence and apply it to the proposition. 

My experience is the proponent of the statement “There are no facts” will not admit to committing this fallacy because he usually does not see the breach and will not say outright that existence does not exist. 

However, this is precisely what the proponent does say when he states, in essence, that he knows “for a fact” no facts exist. Fundamentally, if he were consistent in his principles, the only appeal that could satisfy such an arbitrary proposition is to non-existence. But then he faces the fact that nothing cannot account for something.

Now, for fun, rather than the battle of facts, ask your discussion partner exactly how he came to the conclusion there are no facts. Let him work it out for himself.