An Epiphany (or two)

Today, I had a bit of an epiphany as to why I enjoy Language and Composition so much, as well as a bit of an insight into what the true nature of the class is.
After discussing our soliloquies, John Colpoys, Brendan Caulfield and I had a discussion on theater. We moved from discussing which plays in general we liked best to discussing which recent Festival one-act by BC High we enjoyed the best. John claimed that the "strongest" one-act that we had sent to Festival (colloquially referred to as "festi") was "A Lesson Before Dying", my freshman year. Having not seen it, I couldn't disprove his claim, however what I objected to was his claim that "The Kentucky Cycle" (my sophomore year) was not as strong because it was too dark. But John, I said, isn't "too dark" just a personal opinion or taste? His reply was that, yes it was, but wasn't the whole thing just opinion?
And this is where my minor epiphany came. My objection to John was purely based in language, our ensuing debate was pretty much entirely about language (a little bit of subjectivity vs. objectivity too) and I realized that the point of this class was to help us understand and analyze language. It's basically all semantics, and I love it.
I didn't object to John believing that "The Kentucky Cycle" was too dark; he's perfectly entitled to that opinion. What I objected to was the implication, which was couched in his language, that "too dark" was somehow a characteristic that could be objectively judged, that it was somehow a characteristic that justified his belief that it wasn't as "strong" as "A Lesson Before Dying". But if, as John correctly pointed out, the whole idea of judgement is subjective, what makes this particular subjective opinion invalid?
Well I have an idea about that. Subjectivity and objectivity, like most things on this world, are not black and white. They are gray. It is possible for one opinion to be more right than another opinion. If this sounds ridiculous to you, let me give you a very politically charged example: A leading environmental scientist claims that moving to alternative forms of energy would be very beneficial in the long run. A conservative pundit claims that global warming is a hoax and alternative energy sources a sham. Whose opinion is more valid? Well, the scientist's. As their has more experience and knowledge in the area of alternative energy and global warming, their opinion carries more weight than a pundit who is working off of nothing but his own knowledge, which presumably is not specialized in global warming.
But John is perfectly knowledgeable about theater, why is his opinion invalid?
Well, there are also, in a way, types of opinions. There are opinions that are based in observation or interpretation of facts (I thought that actor did a very good job portraying that character) and there are opinions based on personal taste (I don't like dark plays). If one wants to make any sort of decision resembling objectivity, one must rely on the first type of opinion rather than the second because it is based more in  fact than the second, which is based entirely on personal preference.