Sentences with phrase «argues against anything»

Conversely, weighting these +1 or 0 indicates a lack of vision for instructional change, and argues against anything more than a minimal solution beyond desktop labs.

I mean technically you can argue against almost any decision, but its telling that these fans will always argue against anything seemingly favouring Arsenal.

While it's hard to argue against anything you wrote (i agree with most points), specific examples - especially of people citing those specific individual reasons - would improve this answer a lot.

I have read sufficient on the subject of the timing between the onset of a solar magnetic minimum and global temperatures that I am willing to play devil «s advocate and argue against anything that anyone suggests is true.

Not exact matches

Facebook denies that it is doing anything of the kind, and it argued that Liao Yiwu's account was suspended for repeated violations of a rule against posting pictures containing nudity.

However, Uber argued that it can not give anything from Levandowski without infringing on his Fifth Amendment rights, or the right against self - incrimination.

If anything, some U.S. analysts have argued that the November 4 midterms represented more a vote against Washington gridlock than the endorsement of the political agenda advocated by the Republicans.

In light of historical events, one might argue against her views on the Eichmann trial but most certainly not that the theme of banality reflected anything other than despair over the German Jewish community's failure to recognize the pervasiveness of the system and the corrosion of the legal groundwork of its Nazi - infected mass movements.

It is interesting that anything you don't agree with (and can't argue againsts) Gauis, you dismiss as a «broken record.»

And if you reply with anything that says that Jesus is a facet or aspect or anything else of God, then you can't turn around and argue against mixing God (s)-- and the theory that Allah, or Yahweh, are other names for the same God, because you've already by < definition argued that God can have multiple aspects — why just the three names for them from Trinity theology?

You both have argued against me in anything I have said here and it's demeaning to other who wish to post in these because of «internet trolls» like you two who attack them for a comment or statement.

My guess is that it will be a difficult case to argue against the impact of the contraceptive coverage rule as anything but an «incidental effect» given it targets a market and there's no evidence that the rule is over or under inclusively fashioned as a pretext to target the religious beliefs of those opposed to contraception.

Hence, while I believe that Griffin has every right to maintain that free - will theodicies are implausible and to encourage us to agree, I see no reason why I, or any other FWT, needs to admit (at least on the basis of anything that Griffin has argued) that FWTs can not defend themselves successfully against the claim that free - will theism «can not provide a plausible theodicy.»

It's almost boring to argue with you at this point because in almost all of your comments you go against anything anyone says.

I don't even know what claim you think you're arguing against, but I don't think I disagree with anything substantive you've just said.

The Green party's candidate for mayor of London, Sian Berry, warned against total prohibition, however, arguing there was «no evidence» the Swedish ban had done anything to help trafficked women.

It doesn't cost anything to stand and anyone motivated to want to leaflet all the houses in their ward and argue against Brexit will have the desire, passion and skills needed to make a success of being a councillor if elected.

If they start arguing over anything, I'd start legal proceedings against the garage that was trusted to service your bike, and not destroy it.

However if you are a very active investor than selling seems to be a no brainer and it would be hard to argue against this decision as the price does appear to be meaningfully higher than anything in reality.

If anything you should debate the importance of these titles on Switch, not try to argue against facts regarding downgrades of those games.

[Response: I don't disagree with anything you say, but I was not arguing against this and you keep shifting the focus of the original argument.

And people who argue against doing anything then have to guarantee that humans aren't changing the climate.

Science, if anything, has the defence that objective measure can be used to argue against subversion, as it never can be in religion, politics or morality.

If you've ever wondered exactly why the global coal industry has argued so vehemently — first against the science of climate change and secondly against doing anything about it — the International Energy Agency lays it all out in its latest World Energy Outlook.

So while I expect that climate scientists will argue against «empirical AR1» coefficients as too severe a pseudoproxy test, I, for one, do not think that «empirical AR1» coefficients are too severe a test — if anything, they are probably not severe enough.

There is a consensus that anything that happens is consistent with AGW and one can hardly argue against a consensus.

While I agree that Muller's op - ed piece in the Wall Street Journal seems to be tooting his own horn quite a bit... But on the positive side, to have the Wall Street Journal editorial page publish anything that is arguing for, not against, at least some aspect of the scientific consensus on climate change is a step forward!

With respect to the statement of claim, Howard Levitt wrote in The Financial Post that «Jian Ghomeshi's $ 50 - million lawsuit against the CBC has everything to do with strategy and PR — but nothing to do with legal entitlement,» going on to argue that the damages claimed were out of all proportion to anything that Ghomeshi could hope to recover and, in any event, the «suit will almost certainly be quickly struck down by the courts without Ghomeshi recovering a penny.»

Indeed, I have argued that his arguments against judicial review of legislation and Justice Scalia's in favour of limiting judicial review to the enforcement of the original meaning of the constitution are very similar, and that, if anything, «Justice Scalia and his fellow originalists are guilty of failing to follow the logical implications of their own views about the nature of the questions that arise in judicial review.

At Rs 4,999, it's very tough to argue anything against the Redmi 5A.

- Argue Dave's case before a seller - Represent Dave's best interests to protect Dave against future problems with the purchase - Advise Dave as to negotiation strategy - Negotiate on Dave's behalf - Do anything that Dave lawfully bids.