Sentences with phrase «argument coming from the side»

The main argument coming from this side of the debate is that Microsoft has invested so much money and work in to this game that it would seem very doubtful indeed they'd see it end up on the rival console, the PS4.

Yet sceptics have helped the scientific process produce some notable shifts in the argument coming from the side Lynas believes to be beyond reproach.

Not exact matches

I think people get pulled into these arguments... how many times did the Pharisees seek to get Jesus to commit to» one side or the other» and he would come back at them from a place they were not expecting.

Your position as the saver or spender will change issue to issue, but the point here is that each side is coming from a different foundation of financial values, and those core values feed the arguments over money rather than the money situation itself.

I would just like to point out that at least as many comments coming from the supposed religious side of the argument are just as if not more «hostile and demeaning» towards those of different or no faith.

How can anyone, irrespective of which side the argument comes from, claim himself / herself as correct.

Basically, I strive to be as non-judgmental as possible, and try to see arguments from all sides before coming to any conclusion.

From the other side came the argument, Without troops in Iraq, there would be a 30 percent higher chance of terrorists entering the U.S.

Anyone who has followed the coverage of the ongoing Amazon - Hachette dispute knows that some of the most impassioned voices on the pro-Amazon side of the argument come from self - published writers.

It's always important to mention both sides of an argument, and Take - Two has suggested that game development could be easier next gen. Epic's statements, however, come from its founder, a renowned technical mastermind who is involved in the development of the next iteration of the most used game engine in the world.

I think, had Exxon continued in that role, there might not be such a cacophony of anti-climate arguments that are ongoing now because there would have been somebody at the table who came from the side of fossil fuel use and would have been shown to be a leader in terms of the science and this was their reasoned opinion as to what was going on.

I've seen several commentators make very intelligent arguments to that effect (and they've got some support in the case law, even though I come down on the other side)... but I've never seen it from Steyn himself.

To my mind, the only change that will come about from these discussions / debates, and which make the quest for truth so important, is that people whose minds are not already made up and who will take one side or the other, according to their understanding and the strength of the argument as they perceive it, will vote for whom to elect to represent their point of view in government.

I find such arguments (coming from either side) to be quite implausible.