Sentences with phrase «argument did»

The CJEU rightfully notes that this argument did not so much pertain to the question whether state resources were present in the current case, but if such access conferred a selective economic advantage.

Although persuasive, the global flooding argument didn't ring true.

This argument didn't make much sense to me, but then I didn't spend much time on it.

The argument didn't get far.

At any time during that whole argument did you realize that your were just making stuff up, defending a bad case, hanging yourself out to dry..

Happily, we both agree because his argument did impress me either.

This argument didn't persuade East Village residents, who loudly protested the proposed changes to their neighborhood, but in the end the city planning commission granted conditional approvals to Cooper Union.

Moving on toward the difference between «web apps» and» eBook», Bill's argument did not approve the web app since it would bring «limited enhancements to largely text - centric linear documents.»

Needless to say, this argument did not go well for me («YOU KNOW SOME PEOPLE THINK SHAKESPEARE WAS A WOMAN, MAGGIE!»).

Unfortunately this has not proven to be the case, but that argument did make vouchers more acceptable so that now they are expanding beyond inner - city, low - income students to children of middle class and upper income families.

That argument didn't carry much weight with the agree side.

That argument didn't cut any ice with one Republican who has been a staunch supporter of basic research.

But that argument didn't impress state Sen. Len Fasano, R - North Haven, the Senate's minority leader pro tempore.

The «progressive majority» argument did not wash with AV (which I supported), with many Labour voters ticking «no» precisely because they rejected that label.

For some reason this argument didn't get much traction with over 21,000 people, who complained to the BBC.

I think very highly of Cohen's work generally, but I have to say that this argument did not do much for me.

On each of these it felt like a box was being ticked but the language and the argument didn't resonate, much less the vision.

Her argument didn't make any sense to me: just because her children got distracted by iPads doesn't mean other children shouldn't have them.

Your argument did not address the over-abundance of suffering.

that's another reason the argument didn't fit.

What argument did I come here looking for, Phil?

That argument doesn't hold water with the CFIB.

Note — these arguments do not need to be complicated.

That argument doesn't make sense to Hochberg.

But my argument does not need the 21st Century to be an American century, an Asian one, or a multi-polar one.

These arguments do not seem hugely compelling to me.

But these arguments don't account for how business investment works.

«Rational arguments do not convince people who have emotional biases about something.

What arguments do Spence and Warsh offer for their heterodox conclusion?

I have proof of magnets so your argument does not hold water.

Lewis wasn't a scientist therefore his argument doesn't deserve an answer.

and youre using what you know of for THIS life here on earth... your arguments don't work... they are wrong arguments..

Denying Christianity is vile??? I'm an atheist and believe in equal treatment for everyone... and if your ideas / arguments don't withstand the rigor of doubt, then they are meaningless, worthless positions to maintain.

Gahl's argument does not convince me.

@Chad «the First Cause argument does nt attempt to ascribe the origin of the universe to the God of Israel, it merely says there must be an external causal agent.

@Chad «the argument doesn't make that claim that the first cause if the God of Israel

The Consequence Argument does not touch semicompatibilism, because the Consequence Argument rules out only regulative control, not guidance control.

Stephen Webb's summary of my argument doesn't come close to anything I said.

I personally am a hard - headed rationalist and emotional arguments don't appeal to me.

That argument does not convince.

i know you haven't taken a serious look because your arguments don't match the readily available scholarship for EITHER side of the debate.

The goal is to reverse the values of chastity, but in a situation like this, argument doesn't work.

I am simply trying to point out that monogamy exists outside of Christianity, and polygamy exists within Christianity, and thus her argument doesn't hold up from either end.

Hitler was a catholic and an altar boy, so your war argument doesn't wash.

as far as IM concerned topher is nOT doing it so he can fell better.your argument does NOT support your response (topher only does it dso he can feel better about himself) Topher beliecves strongly the prayer works regardless of what YOU think ok?

So, at the end, his / her argument doesn't follow the evidence (i.e. non sequitur), but it is easier to call out the non sequitur than to detail it like I've done here.

But that is precisely what the first sort of argument does!

This can be done from many points of view, but I have suggested above that the crucial attack is that which accepts the same data and then shows that the argument does not exclude the presence of contingent elements in God's total nature.

The former argument does not exclude mental illness.

(We mention cannibalism, bestiality, and homosexual acts together only because Oliva's argument does.