The entire point of this website is to determine the closest to fact as possible given the falsifiable nature of the system and the people involved in this system. As the author, I seek fact. I hope my intentions and effort towards this system hasn't gone to waste because of certain individuals unwilling to discuss specific issues.

Your point is actually two:
1. Debating with me is pointless.
2. I don't believe in facts.

point one is dependent on the validity of point 2, so I'll begin with concentrating on it first.
I believe in facts, though very few:
a. I believe in most Axioms
b. I believe in a priori knowledge.
c. I believe in Empirical knowledge

I'm sure there are more, but these are the big ones. So to say I don't believe in facts is false, therefore point 1 is by derivation false, and the main point submitted is also.. false

Maybe the author of the point could give some examples of "facts" that I don't believe in.

This point is a logical fallacy because it attacks a person rather any issue. It's also known as an Ad Hominem attack. Try addressing real issues rather than their messengers.