That fails to address the other two points?

That it has shitty unverified sources and that it has also been debunked by historians as a canard.

what 'two other points' are you referring to

I've seen that chart before. It is debunked by both historians and records directly from the Soviet government as well as having an obscure journalist as the first citation and an irrelevant unused one as the second.

>the soviet government is not corrupt
-sincerely, the soviet government

1) The Soviet government disagrees.
2) Credible historians disagree.
3) The citations are shit.

That's 1 for 3. Congratulations.

Im sorry, but someone saying that something is not true does not make it fact

Then why is the contrary somehow true?

I have provided evidence, to which you claim 'hurr it false lol ecks dee'

if you have evidence to counter these sources, then provide otherwise you are spouting nothing but hot air

Yes, I am the one spouting hot air.

which is rather typical of communists anyways

I'm not a communist?

Excellent ad hominem by the way.

No, I did not use my stab toward communists as evidence to prove my argument correct, therefore it is not an adhom

learn your fallacies, retard

Got it.

More non-ad hominem from the genius.

>more blithering bullshit from the communist

You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself and shitposting.

This server really needs a shitposting channel.

its funny, you like the rest of your retarded lefty niggers double down even after you are found incorrect

Still not a communist or even a lefty.

then why are you on a lefty discord?

You are also on a lefty Discord.

Guess you're a retarded lefty nigger.

is it wrong to presume that you are a lefty on a lefty discord, or at least consider you have leftist tendencies?

lol when the retarded lefty nigger doubles down after being incorrect Xd

'no u! EL EM AYE OH ECKS DEE DEE DEE'

I am not putting words in your mouth. 😃

you're just repeating things I'd said

Because you said it in a way that made it applicable to both of us.

So I was not incorrect in saying it.

holding a presumption is not the same as being wrong about a definition

Ad hominems are not different no matter where they are used

people however can be different based on location

Got it.

there is only one adhom falacy, there however is innumerable people

every one being different

fallacy fallacy