Sentences with word «arguer»

And listening to all the rationales and the lack of intellectual vibrancy and curiousity... shows me a field of arguers, not discoverers.

However, by the same token, you manifest that you are a hopeless arguer.

The strongest arguers claim to be the greatest people of sanity, logic, and reason.

You see dear reader, I'm talking about surrogate arguers — professionals, like me (or like I will be once I design a certificate and print it off).

However, I have to say you've been the most childish and incapable arguer yet.

Why do you think that he was the most powerful arguer against carbon caps?

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution.

There is an intimate connection between the argument and the arguer, but their skin color or political position doesn't add a premiss to the argument; it only adds spin.

All the arguing about whether or not the Bible says it's OK to drink really ends up saying much more about the arguers than the topic.

For a people putatively schooled in scripture, these arguers use relatively few biblical allusions.

Easy to get lost in the subject - object matter and think THAT's what the argument IS ABOUT > It's always about US, the arguers.

Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter.

I just had to comment since I was one of the arguers for aesthetic backgrounds for fashion photographs — the green garage door is spot on!

He respected the arguers and sought to help them make the best case possible for their positions.

Although he was an acute critic, his target was always the argument, not the arguers.

If you want to write career research paper as an arguer, you should understand something of these emotional states and motivative drives.

Not as an arbiter, but an arguer.

He concedes that lower oil prices and a devalued loonie are taking a toll on household budgets, but arguers this is just part of much - needed world - wide rebalancing of an economical equation.

The one thing all the «smart people» will agree on is, when you try to denigrate the arguers instead of debating the arguments you are no longer debating science.

That fallacy would be the fallacy of confirming instances (used on both sides): The fallacy of confirming instances is committed when (as you might guess) an arguer only points to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, ignoring disconfirming evidence and the entire data set.

IOW, the same questions, the same subjects, even the same idiocies, are repeated (in my case) EVERY YEAR — year in, year out, because every year brings a new crop of listeners, arguers, debaters, learners — and skeptics.

The «if only you were educated then you would agree with me» theme is and has been repeated countless times, and it NEVER works: it's inconceivable to the arguer that the erstwhile subject in need of said education knows the subject and has reached a different conclusion.

I presume you are not taking the position that authority should be granted to an argument purely on the basis of the past history of the arguer?