Subjectivity, George Orwell, and Feelings vs. Facts

Sorry to bug everyone again. I'm trying to become better at critical thinking and debating, and I really enjoy this site and community. I have three questions this time, all of which stem from conversations with another.

The first is subjectivity.

Many debates I have with person 2 essentially end because I really don't know how to respond to their final argument, which sums up to, "Since opinions are subjective, there is no right or wrong answer, and we are both free to believe what we want, even if we disagree." I don't necessarily disagree with what they're saying, and I realize that subjectivity exists, but it really frustrates me when they say this because it feels as though they are simply ignoring everything I've said during the conversation. But I digress. I'd like to know if there's any fallacious reasoning here, and also how to argue when someone uses the argument of subjectivity. Is subjectivity even a logical argument to use, and if so, when?

Next, there's the topic of George Orwell.

Now, I don't want to start a debate about him or his writings but this particular person holds Orwell's works so high, to the point of suggesting they are really non-fiction, that he's a prophet, and so on. Again, I'm not arguing a point against this, but wouldn't this kind of belief structure of believing that Orwell is some sort of prophet or just simply more intelligent and observant than average citizens simply because some aspects of his works can be alluded to in real life no different in believing the story of Revelations in the Bible simply because earthquakes and tornadoes have occurred in recent times? I don't know what to define this as if it even is fallacious. Help is appreciated.


Finally, feelings and facts.

When arguing, and the person which the other questions have arisen from is not the only one who has done this, some will take the stance that their feelings are just as valid as facts, even if the facts contradict them. For example, someone might mention something along the lines of, "America is in danger." My response is usually to point out that crime rates and statistics nationwide are showing a decrease on average in crime. They'll then say something like, "But no one feels safe. Even if crime rates are down, people don't feel safe, and that is just as important as statistical data." This feels like an Appeal to Emotion (or some variant of it), but I'm not sure. I'd love some clarification.

"Since opinions are subjective, there is no right or wrong answer, and we are both free to believe what we want, even if we disagree."

Opinions should be formed based on reasons, and the reasons should not be fallacious nor based on incorrect information. If one does not care about being rational, reasonable, or truthful, then there isn't much you can do here. If the other person agrees that rationality, reason, and facts are important, you can suggest exploring the opinions and the reasons for them.

Regarding Orwell, this is confirmation bias . We can see similarities in his writing to society today, but there are far more differences than similarities. This is a classic case of focusing on this hits and ignoring the misses.

Regarding feelings vs. facts, yes, this is an appeal to emotion or can also be hasty generalization - generalizing to the population from a small sample. For example, Bill is in jail and does not feel free, therefore, America is not a place of freedom. This feeling over facts is horribly fallacious and the epitome of poor critical thinking.