No problem, and I'm glad that it helped! It's a useful distinction for determining what type of arguments will be useful to make. If two people agree on goals, but differ on the ways to reach those goals, then "is" arguments are useful. If two people disagree on goals, then there isn't yet any common ground on which to have that conversation, and the first step is to have an "ought" conversation to find common ground.

(This is also simplifying a bit, as there are cases where differing goals can have the same next steps. An apolitical example would be a temporary alliance in a board game, where you and I team up to stop a third player from winning. Our long-term goals differ, as each of us wants to win for ourselves, but our short-term goals align at stopping the third player.)