> As discussed throughout, the above results provide no evidence that greater police budgets lead to increases in homicide clearance rates (or equivalently, lower police budgets decrease homicide clearance rates).
No evidence. The experts are clear, police funding doesn't have anything to do with murder clearance rates. I mean that's super counter intuitive, I'd think the more interviews you do, the more forensics you have done, the more likely you are to solve the case but apparently not. I guess all that stuff was just a waste of time, or the experts are wrong once again.
(Apologies for not just linking to the evergreen tweet, couldn’t find it)
What you used just previous to my above post, about cities with people run by people who like NPR, is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" which basically means 'because something exists with something else they must cause each other'. In other words 'because a city is run by a political party, that is the reason that cities have the problem X'. There may be a causation, but you haven't produced any persuasive elements to have anyone make that conclusion. Insinuation is not an argument.
When using fallacies as your rhetorical devices people will call you on it, and the response is not 'no you first', because you are being tasked with actually making the point you were trying to make but without using invalid strategies.
Unless of course you are not able to, in which case 'no you first' is simply a concession.