For this question imagine, You and a friend are having a discussion about Big Political Issue (you may refer to this as BPI). You're both well-informed about the data and arguments for and against Big Political Issue. Also, you've both spent an equal amount of time and effort studying articles on Big Political Issue, and you've shared all of your evidence about Big Political Issue with each other. You and your friend are also, by all objective measures, equally intelligent; you have the same IQ, the same GPA and have taken the same classes with the same teachers, and, in cases where you've disagreed in the past, you've both been equally right / wrong when you've found an answer to whatever you were disagreeing on. All that to say that you and your friend consider each other epistemic peers about Big Political Issue. You have the same evidence (and neither of you have additional evidence) about Big Political Issue and you have equivalent reasoning skills, etc.During your discussion, you and your friend discover that you disagree about Big Political Issue. One of you is pro Big Political Issue and the other is anti Big Political Issue. You support the Conciliationist position.imaginary friend supports the Steadfast position.For this question(1) Clearly state up front which position you have been assigned.(2) Describe (to the instructor and your classmates, not to your friend) how you ought to respond to your disagreement with your friend using the position that you've been randomly assigned.(3) Using the readings and PowerPoint for this module, support your assigned position. That is, paraphrase the reasoning used to defend the position you've been assigned using the readings (and any external sources you might find helpful). Hint: This will probably involve a discussion of the Equal Weight View if you are a conciliationist, and Self-Trust, Private Evidence, or Error Theories if you are a steadfaster.(4) Discuss in your own words (now you may ignore your assigned position) whether the position you were assigned is the appropriate rational response to the disagreement. Please explain why you believe your assigned position was or was not an appropriate rational response to the disagreement.You should be thinking about a few things as you tie this post together (but you do not need to respond to these questions directly in your post): Why is a peer disagreement special compared to "regular" disagreements? Which of the two positions (conciliationism or steadfastness) seems more rational in real-world, everyday disagreements (when you don't know if your interlocutor is a peer or not)? How do disagreements affect your knowledge (what you know, or think you know), and does the answer to that question guide how I respond to common disagreements? Should it?Here are notes from my class to what a response to the question can look like from my professor.