Just as light approaching a black hole approaches it's Event Horizon, conversations progressing through the 4th dimension approach conversational Event Horizons. When light approaches and skates at the Event Horizon we understand/believe that a duplicate of that waveform enters the black hole while the waveform itself can continue unharmed - unless it entirely crosses the event horizon. At conversational Event Horizons, the conversation approaches this same point, given a slightly different understanding (but, backwards compatible).
During a conversational Event Horizon, the conversation progresses to the point at which a 'perceived truth' is mentioned (light approaching). Within the conversation, the speaker who brought up the 'perceived truth' can either continue or await a response (light not yet touching Event Horizon but still has the possibility of touching the Event Horizon as it is unknown where it specifically is) from the other parties. This response, like light, can go one of 'two' ways (just as the light itself could) - positively or negatively for the conversation. The listener can choose to believe the speaker's perceived truth or disbelieve it (still 'approaching').
This yields a situation in which attempting to prove the truth (or disprove it) will irrevocably alter the conversation as it attempts to prove whether or not the light has approached the event horizon or not. However, the only proof is in external observation of the events as neither party involved is capable of proving or disproving 'perceived truth' without knowledge of the full extent of both outcomes after the event horizon. Either party in the conversation represents the potential of light at the event horizon - it either continues into the black hole or continues outside of it (whether or not this will eventually lead to all matter in our universe being sucked into a black hole is still debateable). It cannot be proved by a 'mere man' what happens to the waveform of light as it approaches the event horizon but we believe that a copy of it is made and continues into the black hole - even as the light which does not continue in continues instead on.
The question is this - are you 100% certain that light cannot escape a black hole versus 100% certain that light CAN escape a black hole versus perhaps you cannot make this distinction as a universal truth 100% accurate without further information which may change your answer later.
Three options - heads/tails and edge.
Conflicts and arguments, ultimately, can track back to a perceived truth wherein an improvable postulate approaches a second improvable postulate....