Why would you pick those two words as the place to make a strong rebuttal? Especially when the following paragraph explicitly states "The core issue is..." whic

Why would you pick those two words as the place to make a strong rebuttal? Especially when the following paragraph explicitly states "The core issue is..." which indicates it might provide a more substantive area of discussion. Even if people concede that you proved me wrong on this, it doesn't affect the core point. The demand you make cannot be satisfied to someone discussing in bad faith. - Better businesses exist (no metric for "better") - because of [whatever] (can always be claimed that it was because of something else) Instead of showing that -- perhaps we could both agree on the following: - Some companies, like Boeing, have excellent lobbying relationships. - Those relationships lead to something we could agree to call "regulatory capture" - This regulatory capture makes it so that better companies have a much more difficult time supplanting Boeing. Even if it does eventually happen, it probably takes longer and several additional other companies fail before one succeeds.