- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Just because you claim it not as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.
No, it's really not evidence. It doesn't mention CM. It cites to a worker survey from a decade ago. And it defines terms. That's not evidence of favoritism in dealings with CM.
The fact that favoritism is "always a complaint in government service" is not evidence of favoritism in dealings with CM. The study you cite is about employees who think that government departments play favorites in their promotion practices, not that the Dept. of Energy plays favorites in its dealings with outside businesses. It's a huge leap for you to say that one survey citing worker complaints of favoritism means that all of government is acting out of favoritism. That would be like me saying that because I know a conservative who once made a racist joke, all conservatives must be racists. Logic doesn't support that kind of an argument.
You did not show a pattern. One instance is not a pattern. You pointed to one instance where a campaign contributor got funding. How many loan applications were there, how many were granted, and how many of those were campaign contributors? Show a pattern.
Now, you have cited a news investigation that questions whether there is favoritism in government lending practices. So there's a question as to whether there is favoritism. But a question that there has been favoritism is not proof of favoritism, and it's certainly not proof of favoritism in dealings with CM. You've got evidence to raise the question, but it doesn't prove your point.
Your SCU stuff wasn't evidence of favoritism, it was just a definition of various kinds of favoritism (and a pretty good one) and an assertion that favoritism is always a problem in governments. That doesn't provide any evidence for whether the CM loan is an instance of favoritism.
Really - show me a pattern here, and I'll agree that maybe it smells like a rat. You clearly try to stay informed on the topic of government lending. You've got one example where a contributor got funding and a non-contributor didn't, but absent the hard evidence of favoritism (like there's some big news expose with government documents and I just don't know about it), you're going to have to provide enough evidence that I can infer that this is an instance of favoritism. So can you show a pattern?
Actually, I don't think that the comment about the quality of debate is elitism. It's not elitism to say that a sophisticated level of debate involves people who are educated on the issues presenting well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence, which is what I am used to in debating, and which sadly is not something I see much of 'round here. Unless it is "elitism" to say wow, you guys can't present a well-reasoned argument worth a sh!t, nor can you even be bothered to read one. I guess that does give me some insight into why conservatives are so easily led around like sheeple, though. (Was that elitist of me?)
Right, but what I'm saying is that you haven't presented any evidence that this particular instance is an example of government favoritism. All you've presented is evidence that the folks who aren't getting $310 mil are complaining of favoritism.
I'm not asking you to produce impossible evidence, just to present some evidence. Is it out there? Point me at it.
You say that favoritism is always something of a problem in government, ok, but again that's neither here nor there when it comes to this particular example of the CM loan.
You say it's favoritism; I'm just saying ok, show me evidence of that.
No, I think it's just that I'm used to a much more sophisticated level of debate, where the debaters are highly educated individuals who research the topics of debate and present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence; whereas a large percentage of the people here just like to rant.
You did. And I have presented evidence that your point is debatable. You are welcome to read it and to argue against it. Until that point, since you have asserted that you have no intention of doing so, you have conceded the debate. Sorry, but that's how debating works.
No, you conceded, which means you lost. You said, in effect, "I am not going to rebut any of your arguments." That means you conceded, you lose.
I find it very immature that you would get on a debate site and then refuse to read the arguments made by other debaters. Why would you even be here if you are not interested in participating in debate? I have made an argument, and you have conceded; but if you would like to re-join the debate, the burden is now on you to rebut my arguments.
then the definition of government is beyond your understanding
That would be sort of surprising, because I have a law degree from a top-tier school.
You did proceed to state your point about government budgets much more clearly, though, so now your assertion is much more comprehensible. I will agree that government budgets are "political" in the sense of "pertaining to the body politic." That's neither here nor there on the issue of government favoritism, though.
You have also presented a bit of evidence, which is that Solyandra contributed to the Obama campaign whereas CM didn't. That's potentially relevant, but it's not enough to show me that the government acted with favoritism. Can you show a pattern of loan approval to campaign donors, or evidence of conversations about a secret "deal" between Solyandra and any government official? One incident where a campaign donor got a loan, plus one incident where a non-donor didn't, isn't enough to show that there's government favoritism at work.