Sentences with phrase «argue their points on»

You can't argue a point on Chrsitianity based on what you see.

I'll try to dig up that article, but from what I recall it was from an advisory magazine trying to argue a point on how B - shares could be a good option.

Many backers argued this point on the forums, and we listened carefully to the debate.

My own reason for arguing any point on Climate Etc. is not to persuade the skeptics, who have persuaded me that they are beyond persuasion, but merely to put my own views on record in a setting where there are sufficiently strongly held opposing views as to show that my view is at least not vacuously true but requires more thought in order to accept it.

If we attempt to analyse the few facts that seem to be known, the first part of the test is relatively easy to overcome in that it is clear that the aircraft was under the respondents control, there was an attempt by the respondents to argue the point on the basis that Mr Williams was on a gratuitous joy ride which had not been sanctioned by them.

Not exact matches

Anyadiegwu argued that while she's grown the company tremendously on her own — to the point where she sees $ 50,000 a month in revenue — she needs a shark's help to scale up and build a larger online platform.

Taken to its logical extreme, his research seems to argue that boards should have only female directors, but he's careful to point out that not all women score highly on complex moral reason (sometimes known as «CMR») decision - making, and some men do.

Meanwhile, the two companies have also been the subjects of merger rumors, with Fortune even arguing at one point that DraftKings and FanDuel could join forces to defeat their legal problems and not have to also focus on competing with one another.

In court documents filed with the Northern California District Court on Thursday, Uber argued that the class - action part of the suit should be dropped because the 160,000 drivers, «have little or nothing in common, other than their use of the Uber App in California at some point over the past six years.»

Investors who think they've missed the market's big move might have a point, but they could also be underestimating the upside ahead, CNBC's Jim Cramer argued on Monday.

On a side note, when I make this argument, sometimes people argue the point.

A few times during the session Kogan made a point of arguing that data audits are essentially useless for catching bad actors — claiming that anyone who wants to misuse data can simply put a copy on a hard drive and «store it under the mattress».

While some segments of the KMT pointed to the event as a last - minute external factor that swung many voters in DPP's direction in many competitive races, analysts and DPP supporters argue that the video probably only had marginal impact on the electoral outcome.

A few days later, while arguing that his personal feelings on the matter should not affect the ultimate decision to accept or reject the proposal, he stated, «from my [point of view] it seems that the community's feeling on this issue isalready [sic] clear.»

We have long argued that it is vital for investors to filter out the noise that creates short - term flash points and instead stay focused on the secular themes that are driving valuations over the longer run (such as demographic trends and technological innovation).

Those arguing that the new law will have little impact on spam miss the point: the law is shifting privacy expectations in how our information is collected and used.

«I'd argue it's more on the psychological side of things, whereby people see a new major policy pointed at the housing market and take a bit of a step back, temporarily reassess where they are in the marketplace before perhaps moving back into the market.»

On that point, to argue that low interest rates are enough to make extreme valuations irrelevant is to wholly miss the point.

In fairness, Nick of Sure Dividend uses the Sharpe Ratio and research by Kenneth French to argue on the side of dividend stocks and makes some good points.

The point is that after decades of touting his business acumen, his ability to negotiate tough deals and spot good investments, and after spending this entire campaign season arguing that he's qualified for the presidency based on his skills in the market, Trump nonetheless has an investment record that at best roughly matches and at worst underperforms the market.

The banks will argue hey are existing loans simply rolling over so we may not know the answer for a while on this point.

For Wood, the bottom line is for Crescent Point to embrace the dissident and argues that an «elegant solution» would be to take the four nominees on as directors.

And considering the impact of religion on society (good or bad) I would argue it is not a moot point for discussion period.

That's a good point, our government is racking up debt faster than locust on a wheat field, and we're arguing about gay - marriage, race and still abortion issues.

To those who argue that Hamze did not condemn: «radical islam» I point to this quote in the article itself: «Terrorists attacked us on 9/11, Mr. West.

Disturbing, on CNN's «Belief» blog, an atheist points out the anti-Christmas campaigns under way and then argues that there is no war on Christmas!

And I'll leave it to others to argue other points, but you assume way too much on the very first point.

Raiders and traders are almost inevitably uncomprehending or disdainful of one another, but Jacobs argues that from a global point of view, each system is valid on its own terms and each promotes the general welfare.

Don't misunderstand me; some evolutionists (particularly some of the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, who argues in his new book people who don't believe in evolution are on the same level as Holocaust deniers) have gone ape over their theory (forgive the pun) to the point that they seem to forget it is a theory, and refer to it as if it is an undeniable scientific fact.

But amazingly the fact that some said it rested on the back of a turtle did not make it fact, as I was pointing out, just arguing about God's existence is not proof of that existence.

----- Depending on point of view, many argue that pastors are deceivers?

Martin points out, for example, how Evans argues «on faith» that Jesus possessed foreknowledge, but then endorses an interpretation of a New Testament story in which Jesus expected something that did not happen.

So if you have a triune god who is father, son, and holy ghost but you have a mother of the human manifestation of father / son god — then Mary is arguably the mother of god and in that way could be argued as the more divine at some point in the history of the transformation of the triune god in heaven to the triune god on earth and of course the few days when the triune god on earth was dead (but not really dead) before rising.

Later, I did a whole series on «Gospelism» (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6) in which I argue many of the points that Scot McKnight made in his book, but which he referred to as «Gospeling.»

The Old Man (nervously): I certainly can not argue with you on those points.

Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (Harper & Bros., 1948), p. 266, makes this point in a chapter on «Ritual, Symbol, Sacrament» which, in dependence on C. D. Broad, develops a doctrine of real presence similar to the one argued for here.

He suggests two other points of view, and proposes that the chaplain be their advocate in the professional mix: a focus on meaning, arguing that the mentally ill have lost or have never found meaning in life (Tillich, Frankl); and a focus on morals, suggesting that a violation of moral obligation or social responsibility accounts for mental distress (Mowrer, Boisen).

If you can't argue intelligently and make things up to prove your point, you must realize that intelligent people are going to call you out on it.

I'm not saying the unnecessary suffering of animals is good, or moral, but rather pointing out that your perspective on the subject is no more rational, no more based on fact, than that of the people you are arguing against.

Furthermore, I have argued that on some of these points the changing situation and growing knowledge of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would have led Wesley to come down at a different place.

It basically contradicts itself on every single moral message, so can be used to argue any side of any point.

Yes, we disagree on what his mission was, or what it all means from a cosmological perspective, but that doesn't mean we have to argue about those points.

A «colossal hypocrite with a chip on his shoulder and a lack of good sense,» no, though others would argue the point.

For example, Moses Stuart of Andover Seminary in Massachusetts (who was sympathetic to the eventual emancipation of American slaves, but was against abolition), published a tract in which he pointed to Ephesians 6 and other biblical texts to argue that while slaves should be treated fairly by their owners, abolitionists just didn't have Scripture on their side and «must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the fiery course which they are pursuing.»

At that point, they typically invoke special pleading (the «un-caused cause»), arguing that the premise they initially relied on doesn't apply to their proposed solution and they effectively lose.

Our point is not to argue the validity of each story in the bible, but to accept its lesson, on what to do, or what not to repeat!

Whether commenting on the liturgy or arguing a point of morality, Howard stresses the biblical foundation, interpreted and expanded by tradition.

I could argue with you on your points, but I can tell this is a hot topic for you, and so I am not going to waste my time.

So can satan cultist graffiti artists spray paint curses on the graves of the Phelps» graves, or are their graves now special because 14 out of 16 Phelps family members are attorneys who know how to argue any point, right or wrong, to win in a court of law?

I suspect it is» it would seem impertinent, to say the least, to argue with the founding fathers on the point» but I do want to complicate the argument just a bit.