Sentences with phrase «weak argument there»

Every single PS3 plays PS3 games, Weak Argument there.

Not exact matches

«There has been an argument that the Japanese policy might lead the yen to become weaker, but I think the overall understanding gained at this time is that this has not been the case.»

here's the argument to your stupid hedge bet... which is a weak reason to believe by the way... if there is a god, he is the all knowing, all loving, all accepting kind of god and he will recognize those that led good lives and those that led bad ones and regardless of their religious beliefs will judge them on their actions and be allowed into this heaven.

It is very interesting that when St. Thomas Aquinas asks if God could have united the nature of an angel to himself, although in the end and on — I think — pretty weak grounds he rejects this argument, he speculates: «There are some who say an angelic nature could not have been assumed because angels not being generated or corrupted are from the moment of their creation perfect in their personality,» (ST III, q. 4, a. 2).

If there's only one argument for God, and even it scarcely seems conclusive, that's a pretty weak case.

Moreover, Leclerc's own argument that certain intimate actions binding minimal substances together are themselves substantial principles, is very weak, and seems to rest on the assertion that such relations must be substantial because 1) there are composite material substances, and 2) such composites are composed of other, smaller substances.

Baron rejected the argument that the Conservatives may struggle to get a referendum bill through parliament as «weak» and insisted «there was no downside in trying».

Social mobility is actually a left - safe way of talking about opportunity whereas in its heart the left wants equality of outcome If there is opportunity the argument for state control becomes weaker and the role of the left disappears and that is why it is commuited to maintaining poverty by rewarding idleness and creating an underclass

My instinct would be that the best (and pretty weak) case for good faith, reasonable proportionality, etc would relate not at all to the group of protestors who were contained, but either to some argument relating to the resource pressures of policing adjacent events, fears of the risks of issues involved in one becoming mixed up in the other, etc, etc which (at its very best) would be a highly pre-emptive and precautionary approach to a situation where there was no existing problem to be contained.

In the Center's view, this argument is weak, as there is no proven relationship between a large government and a well - governed, prosperous society.

The precautionary principle is a weak argument for two reasons: (1) it is difficult to prove a negative — that there is no effect; (2) it raises unnecessary public alarm and personal anxiety.

A smaller temperature gradient suggests weaker convection, though there's a lot going on though so «all else equal» arguments don't prove much.

They attack the weakest part of the argument, that there are only four deals mentioned to be in trouble out of thousand or more deals.

The data contradict both arguments, of course — there's no reliable tendency for active management performance to improve when correlations are low or when markets are weak.

A smaller temperature gradient suggests weaker convection, though there's a lot going on though so «all else equal» arguments don't prove much.

I realise this sort of discussion could go off - topic quite easily and I'd really rather go over the meta - argument about whether there are any anti-AGW policies which we should be «happy» about regardless of whether AGW is real or not, I just wanted to point out how weak I think this statement is.

Was the director concerned that the results would undermine the already extremely weak arguments that global warming from roughly the middle of the 1970s to near the end of the 1990s (there has been none since) was almost entirely the result of human - caused processes?

If there is one comment that makes a strong argument on a particular point and many comments that argue the opposite side of that point with weak technical or purely emotional arguments who wins?

However, there are some strong arguments why this prior is not justifiable, and comparatively weak ones for using it.

There are a multitude number of pieces of evidence for this, stemming from mass balance arguments, changes in isotopes, O2 / N2 ratios, observed changes in carbon in other sources (acting as a sink), paleo - sensitivity studies showing that CO2 is a relatively slow and weak feedback (~ 10 ppm / C), etc..

You can reasonably argue that given our clear lack of concern over international development, there is a weaker argument for strong mitigation in developed countries.

All that having been said, let's take another look at the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) argument, first noting the following: The proponents of AGW argue that, right from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no automobiles, very few steam engines, and only 1.2 billion people (versus today's 7 billion), the introduction of initially tiny quantities of a weak greenhouse gas produced, without time - delay, an in - phase and measurable rise in global temperatures that continues to this day.

With sterling, hopefully or not depending on your persuasion, at its weakest, there is also real scope for the position to be flipped with argument against windfalls should sterling rally in the future.