I think you need to be careful in either direction. Let's use an example. Say we are playing a memory game where a 4x4 grid of images flash for a second and each is either a pig or a duck and we have to say how many ducks flashed.
If I close my eyes and just say I believe there were 6 ducks, that isn't objectively very useful (even if I were correct by dumb luck). But what if I was looking, yet wasn't entirely sure if it was 5, 6, or 7, and still said 6? Then I'd be stating a fact as a fact even though I don't know if it is.
Both of those are problems, and both happen all of the time. The reality of life, in my opinion, is that there are very few things for which there are clear and absolute facts, except for really simple things like kindergartner games, but then we almost never are in contention over anything that simple.
That is why I think it is always important to qualify one's factual assertions. For instance, I could say that I am 70% certain that there were 6 ducks and I have been right 90% of the time. By doing that I am qualifying the probability of my factual assertion and providing some measurement of my 'expertise' on the matter.
And for anything more complex, one should also provide support for their claim and context, but people really don't in general think like that, even for simple issues, and for really complex issues like global macroeconomics or global warming, forget about it...we have built a machine that we are no longer capable of even understanding (that part is pure opinion of course).
And on top of all that, people sometimes are intentionally obfuscatory, tangential, or dishonest. Say we are playing our memory game and someone is asked how many ducks and they reply that there definitely wasn't 4 pigs. Well, what the heck does that mean? In this context it sounds silly, but for a deeper issue, these types of diversions can be very affective (in a nonconstructive way).
Not entirely sure what my point is. I guess that facts are slippery suckers, and some 'facts', as much as some beliefs, quack but look like a pig.