Sentences with phrase «arguing against this point»

I cant argue against your point.

You've successfully refuted your position that «morality is relative» just by arguing against the points I've made.

I assumed the comment was directed at the piece, and just felt like, why argue against a point I never made?

Your fourth sentence was exactly the sentiment I was arguing against your point of acquiring Smart and Bradley, not sure how you are twisting it to defend yourself..

You're arguing against a point he isn't making.

The 26 year - old believes his treatment was unfair however, although I would argue against his point...

I read today that crystals should be put away with your summer decor, but I have to argue against that point.

And in your opinion, I am playing the catastrophic role, why don't you argue against the points I make rather than straw men of your own construction?

Not understanding this simplest of concepts, but still arguing against this point seems somewhat childish.

You continue to twist my analogy immensely, ignore my points, and argue against points I have never made.

However, I'm sure there will be many who will argue against this point of view.

Not exact matches

Both points argued against a purchase: continuing to sell to other companies removed the only plausible strategic rationale for buying the company instead of simply buying robots, but to stop selling to Kiva Systems» existing customers would be value - destructive.

At one point during the transition, Kushner had argued internally against giving Conway a White House role, these two people said.

Be that as it may, the point of this talk is to argue against the proposition that a particular type of demand management policy was responsible for growth achieved over a couple of decades.

You raise a very good point that escapes most theists and that is while they argue against atheists for not believing in their god, they forget that most of those arguments could be applied to them by somebody of another religion.

Again, my concern at that point was to argue for profound transformation, not to argue against continuity.

It is a strange picture that we are given of Jesus during these first days in the temple: arguing freely with Sadducees, scribes, and Pharisees; parrying more or less subtle attempts to lure him into statements that could be used against him; answering sincere questions and approving good answers to his own questions; pronouncing fiery invectives against influential teachers who opposed him; lamenting the failure of Jerusalem to respond to his challenge; and then calmly pointing out to his disciples the tiny but sacrificial offering of a poor widow.

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.

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.»

If you have arguments against the philosophy of the Church or the dogma of the religion, I can respect the difference and argue the points.

If I were to argue against abortion the way you argue for it, I would point to late term abortions, regretted abortions, or the abuse of abortion by people who use it as a form of birth control, etc..

Against this he argues that a beginning of time is self - contradictory.14 Be this last point as it may, the doctrine need not be so construed.

Nor do I find any other cogent arguments in Hartshorne against the attributes of the second group, though I will not be able to argue this last point in detail.

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.

But he makes the point that this only modifies what Darwin proposed, and he also argues against creationism.

You make several points, and they try to argue against one little part as if it somehow made the hard questions go away.

Arguing against New York as the site, the editors pointed out that

Are you arguing for my point or against it?

Bennett pointed out in his letter that Goldwater omitted an important adjective in that quote, for he had actually argued that the church should not be engaged in «a holy war» against communism.»

There's nothing offensive or against the rules in my comment, but it is strongly critical, and I would like to think, well argued point against Biblical religions.

instead of complaining in generalities that show no signs of intelligence, how bout you argue against an actual point he makes in the article.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

And more to the point, why were government lawyers sent to Strasbourg to argue against all four claimants, including Nadia Eweida?

While the defenders of a resurrection can point to a unanimity that Mary Magdalene discovered an empty tomb and (including Mark by inference) that Jesus appeared to the apostles, those who argue against it can point to all these inconsistencies.

K's posts give me the impression that he thinks Wenger is at fault for all the evils and Wenger should be blamed for everything, he has his blame and that I do not argue against, I do think he ignores what he wishes to ignore to support his point of view.

This is one point I always argue against.

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

This is on what these two are truly arguing; Wenger uses the cup as an example against Neville but Neville isn't really belittling our ability to win games, but rather, that in the long run of a whole season it is more likely for us to drop points due to relying purely on skill which is far more linked to form then something like physicality.

steel showed by our boys, great fightback but wenger has thrown away the league, no point arguing for and against — its done we have talked ramsey a million times, the lack of cazorla replacement, giroud - just save it.

The problem is that you have laid out your points so well, it's difficult to argue against them.

Argue against that but 10 years without a title, 12 points off Chelsea last term, brushed aside by Monaco in the last 16, and chucked out the Capital One at Home vs Saints says otherwise.

In this case however, more goals get scored in the Prem than Serie A where defending is more of a focus - and although you might have a point if you say that there are less strong teams in Serie A than the Prem currently - what Higuain has done this season is so exceptional that it's surely impossible to argue against him improving any team besides Barcelona & Bayern.

You can argue that Bournemouth were unlucky to get something out of their trip to Anfield last weekend, and it was only the heroics of Coutinho that ensured they picked up three points against Stoke.

I think you're partly proving your own point by arguing against a perceived general bias in favour of Hülkenberg, which in my opinion doesn't quite exist.

Even here in whatever - city - USA, nothing a baby can or can not do makes sense except in light of the mother's body, a biological reality apparently dismissed by those that argue against any and all bedsharing and what they call cosleeping, but which likely explains why most crib - using parents at some point feel the need to bring their babies to bed with them — findings that our mother - baby sleep laboratory here at Notre Dame has helped document scientifically.

«A lot of people point to men being exposed to breasts as their go - to when arguing against why mothers shouldn't breastfeed openly in public,» the photographer explained.

Admittedly, this point is not beyond dispute: most notably, Adam Tomkins has argued against this view, contending that the Scottish Parliament lacks this power, but, for reasons I have set out on this blog, I think it unlikely he is correct on this point.

Exxon this week hit back against the California lawsuits in a filing with a Texas state court pointing out none of the cities disclosed such risks to bond buyers and arguing the lawsuits were politically motivated and linked to cases brought by the states of New York and Massachusetts.

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'm pretty sure even he would argue against you on that point.