• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cuban intelligence agencies recruit leftist professors

Hatuey said:
Lmao apdst - you still don't realize what I did, do you? I posted in both cases the same information from both a book taking a plausible account of what happened using facts (i.e: your "fictional book") and a historical document (The Warren Commission) and you refused to acknowledge what is an admitted fact in the historical document (the Warren commission) because you didn't know Oswald had tried to defect to Cuba. It's more than obvious now that you don't know what a fact is or how they work in terms of substantiating a claim.
Click to expand...

What your did was post a fiction book as historical evidence.

APDST 10

Hatuey's credibility: 0
 
apdst said:
What your did was post a fiction book as historical evidence.
Click to expand...

Lmao, apdst, last time I ask you: Is the Warren Commission a fictional book? Does it differ from the book I posted? Yes or no answers. When you answer them, you'll be able to tell us you know the difference between facts, evidence and conjecture.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao, apdst, last time I ask you: Is the Warren Commission a fictional book? Does it differ from the book I posted? Yes or no answers. When you answer them, you'll be able to tell us you know the difference between facts, evidence and conjecture.
Click to expand...

Look dude, you could bring Oswald back from the dead and your credibility would still be in the toilet...because...you tried to pass off a fiction book as historical evidence! :lamo

Who's next? Daniel Steel? :lamo
 
apdst said:
Look dude, you could bring Oswald back from the dead and your credibility would still be in the toilet...because.
Click to expand...

Because you still wouldn't know the difference between a fact and conjecture. That book was conjecture based on facts. Your statement was conjecture based on facts. You couldn't tell the similarities could you? You did the exact same thing the book did and when called on it you stated the book was fiction and avoided the fact that your statement is just as much fiction as the book. Again apdst, look:

1. Book, conjecture based on evidence and facts (like the fact that Oswald tried to defect to Cuba).
2. You claim that Oswald and Cuba worked together to kill Kennedy (based on the fact that Oswald went to the Cuban agency to try and defect) - Conjecture.

You seriously don't see it?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Because you still wouldn't know the difference between a fact and a conjecture. For example, that book was conjecture based on facts. Your statement was conjecture based on facts. You couldn't tell the similarities could you?
Click to expand...

I know the difference between fact and fiction! Obviously, you don't! :lmao
 
apdst said:
I know the difference between fact and fiction! Obviously, you don't! :lmao
Click to expand...

Yes, this is fiction:

apdst said:
The Cubans assassinated Kennedy. That's a **** load more than microscopic.
Click to expand...

This is a fact:

Chapter 7

, he insisted that he was entitled to the Cuban visa because of his background, partisanship, and personal activities on behalf of the Cuban movement.
Click to expand...

and you still don't see a difference.
 
apdst said:
You're going to stick with the fiction book, huh? :lamo
Click to expand...

The Warren Commission is now fiction. Got it. You still don't see how bad you look when you don't recognize facts from conjecture do you? The Cubans killed Kennedy... conjecture. Oswald tried to defect to Cuba? Fact.
 
apdst said:
No, I posted facts. Get a grip and read a book.
Click to expand...

You posted facts that did nothing to prove your theory. Get a grip and learn about logic.
 
apdst said:
Your ignorance is on display for all to see.

Ya see, the difference is, I haven't been dishonest about anything. I might bs wrong--doubtful--but not dishonest.

Play your game all you want, but there it is.
Click to expand...

Of course you were dishonest. You made a definitive statement, then you either lied about making it or changed the goalposts because you knew you couldn't support your position. THEN, instead of being honest and admitting that you couldn't support your position, you either feigned ignorance on the meanings of words, or you actually didn't know the meaning of words. When you finally admitted your screw up with the "suggestion" you refused to acknowledge it in later posts, remaining dishonest. Your dishonesty and ignorance on this topic is on display for all to see. I'm just glad I could be part of exposing it.
 
apdst said:
The Cubans never said anything about Oswald defecting. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Notice how you are avoiding the issue. You claimed that the Cubans had Kennedy killed. Definitively. In the above post, Hatuey challenges this. What do you focus on? A minor point since you are too dishonest to actually address his confrontation. This is not surprising as you are doing the exact same thing to me.
 
apdst said:
I know the difference between fact and fiction! Obviously, you don't! :lmao
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't. You posted that the Cubans had Kennedy assassinated and tried to pass that off as fact... and failed miserably.
 
Hatuey said:
The Warren Commission is now fiction. Got it. You still don't see how bad you look when you don't recognize facts from conjecture do you? The Cubans killed Kennedy... conjecture. Oswald tried to defect to Cuba? Fact.
Click to expand...

He's not going to get what you tried to do. It was far too complex.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
He's not going to get what you tried to do. It was far too complex.
Click to expand...

The best part is that he called out the book for admitting that it was a plausible scenario but ultimately a conjecture based on facts from the Warren Commission. You can't make this kind of guy up.
 
Hatuey said:
The best part is that he called out the book for admitting that it was a plausible scenario but ultimately a conjecture based on facts from the Warren Commission. You can't make this kind of guy up.
Click to expand...

You'd think that when someone gets beaten and shown to be wrong/dishonest as he was in this thread, he'd have the decency to admit he made an error. I must have given him 4 chances to do so. "The Cubans Had Kennedy Killed". A definitive statement. That was a good one. :lol:
 
No, those are facts. In fact, Oswald was an activist in support of communist Cuba. Look it up.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And that's not evidence. That's conjecture and supposition... and conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
The Warren Commission is now fiction. Got it. You still don't see how bad you look when you don't recognize facts from conjecture do you? The Cubans killed Kennedy... conjecture. Oswald tried to defect to Cuba? Fact.
Click to expand...

Does this surprise anyone?
 
TobyOne said:
No, those are facts. In fact, Oswald was an activist in support of communist Cuba. Look it up.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to the claim that apdst made. A fact can be a fact and have nothing to do with proving a theory. That's what happened here.
 
Facts are facts. Not conjecture or supposition. So, if you see facts, then recognize them as such and learn to differentiate between facts and conclusions. Thats how all this works. If the conclusion is conjecture that doesn't mean the premises are false.





CaptainCourtesy said:
And that's not evidence. That's conjecture and supposition... and conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
Which is irrelevant to the claim that apdst made. A fact can be a fact and have nothing to do with proving a theory. That's what happened here.
Click to expand...
 
The Freemason's killed Kennedy.
 
TobyOne said:
No, those are facts. In fact, Oswald was an activist in support of communist Cuba. Look it up.
Click to expand...

Those facts don't support the claim that the Cubans killed Kennedy. Nobody has questioned that Oswald was trying to defect to Cuba (except apdst, who isn't privy to 50 year old info). Nobody questions that Oswald was a supporter of communism. What is being contested is that any of the aforementioned facts mean that a foreign power is responsible for the death of JFK.
 
TobyOne said:
Facts are facts. Not conjecture or supposition. So, if you see facts, then recognize them as such and learn to differentiate between facts and conclusions. Thats how all this works. If the conclusion is conjecture that doesn't mean the premises are false.
Click to expand...

If the conclusion is stated as a fact and the facts used to arrive at that conclusion aren't relevant, then the premises are the incorrect ones to use and whether they are false or not is irrelevant. This is pretty basic debating. In short, what apdst is doing is something like this:

Premise 1:Dinosaurs are animals.
Premise 2: Dogs are animals.
Conclusion: Dinosaurs and dogs are the same thing because they're both animals.

Non-sequiturs are a terrible way to argue.
 
TobyOne said:
Facts are facts. Not conjecture or supposition. So, if you see facts, then recognize them as such and learn to differentiate between facts and conclusions. Thats how all this works. If the conclusion is conjecture that doesn't mean the premises are false.
Click to expand...

See, I certainly have shown repeatedly the difference between facts and conclusions. apdst did not, which is what I pointed out. How this works is this: if you make a definitive statement and are asked to prove it, trying to prove it with conjecture doesn't cut it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom