Sentences with phrase «argument has always»

The curved argument has always been about making content more immersive for the viewer, but also better for those people at wider angles.

The argument has always been fundamentally flawed, because as The Escalator shows, it's based entirely on cherry picking short - term noise in the data.

And while some predict gloom and doom, the counter argument has always come in the publisher's software, which — at its best — is completely untouchable.

My argument has always been that there is such a low - level of entry that anyone can get in and be an «expert».

This argument has always treated the public as an infantile blob.

My argument has always been that in an ideal world all children would be brought up by two loving parents.

What utter drivel you two talk, the crux of your argument has always been that we don't need to improve the squad, well if that's true why did we not win the PL last season or the CL?

My argument has always been the best defense is attack and in football to win you have to attack and therefore, the primary reason football match is played is to win.

you ONLY state they are attracted... I di dnot deny they are attracted... neverf implied it... MY argument has ALWAYS been the source!

My argument has always been: let's get real.

I'm going to give you the argument I've always used on NGDPLT, and I'd be curious as to whether you think it's right.

The Russo brothers understand how important the family dynamic is to this storyline, and they not only manage to portray that in this film, but use just enough personal banter on top of the intense drama to remind us that regardless of past arguments they've always been a strong unit.

In some senses I think of this as another way of approaching the equation of form and content, and how arguments have always been conducted about their relative importance.»

Here an argument I have always wanted to make and I would like to see if there is anything wrong with it.

Though the Daedalus Project is aimed at a general audience, his arguments have always been well supported and he has openly acknowledged his limitations.

Not exact matches

Canada has not always won disputes using that tool, the argument goes, and if a good deal on softwood lumber can be struck quickly, outside of NAFTA, maybe Canada could rely on the World Trade Organization mechanism and domestic courts to do the referring.

The main argument against taking action to reduce carbon emissions has always been economic.

«Elliott has always behaved ethically in its disputes with corporate managements and boards, and it is regrettable and disappointing that certain parties adverse to us would choose to promote false allegations about us rather than engage on the merits of our arguments in good faith.»

This is because, even if you have a heated argument, as long as you keep in the back of your mind that the people you're arguing with do have the best in mind for the company and wider team, you'll always be able to make it to the end and remain friendly.

I always get amused at folks who think oil demand is going to drop and the only argument they have is EV's.

Analysts who retain sympathy for the gold standard, like self - confessed «gold bug» John Mauldin, have always understood that the main argument in favor of gold is that it imposes an unbreakable trade and capital flow discipline — indeed that is also the main argument against gold — but many of them have tended to de-emphasize reserve currency economics mainly, I think, because this particular problem is to them subsumed under their more general concerns about money.

Lou Mercer: Or we're always taught the market does not like uncertainty, but you can make an argument that since the election, we've been more uncertain than ever.

The problem I've always had with the stocks vs bond yield argument is that if rates rise, the whole thing doesn't make sense.

Taken as a whole they've made a very compelling argument that the explanations of the universe provided by both science and religion are incomplete and always evolving, and that one perspective is no more or less valid than another.

They have no facts and present rhetorical arguments that have no real foundation, always quoting Hebrew scholars and Smithsonian experts who, not surprisingly, don't exist.

she always has one good christian defending her faith over any given time in ways which dodo has scripted arguments designed to refute the poor girl.

The argument for a system in which some people get very rich has always been that the lure of wealth provides powerful incentives.

Launch an Arminianism Awareness Day to address some of the common misconceptions about Arminians — that we think grace is earned, that we have a «man - centered» theology, that we're all dispensationalists, that just because we lost that one argument with our Calvinist roommate back in 2003 we're always wrong.

And would it not be desirable if I could confine the terms of my argument to meat and drink, and did not need to bring in kings, whose thoughts are not always like those of other men, if they are indeed kingly.

I will agree that an argument from majority is not always valid, but in this case I think it would be analogous to the fact that there is a small percentage of individuals who don't believe we went to the moon.

I have always gotten a kick out the argument that if you don't agree with ME about what the bible means then it must be because you don't believe God or the bible.

I have yet to see any proof of a god, and most of this nonsense is about their god, so at some point their arguments or lack of them will always have that one huge hole in them.

It is the argument that says: «The church has always taught unending conscious torment and therefore it must be right.»

It is no argument against what I am saying to say that people have always protested change.

I've always been so afraid of their arguments... and now I wonder more and more if that was because I knew that in my «heart of hearts» I was inclined to believe them, which was sinful and bad and a one - way ticket to hell....

When believers are challenged, and their arguments have proven inadequate, they always fall back on humans not being able to fathom god.

Indeed, and I would hazard a guess the vast majority of them were Christians, which sorta obliterates the «argument» people always throw out about Hitler (and Stalin, for that matter).

The tyranny of the PRO-LIFE argument is so retarded because it demands that NO ONE should be able to have an abortion, even if the fetus is (1) the result of a vicious r - ape, (2) the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, among other examples that prove that abortion is not always an «act of convenience.»

Apparently «he has always existed» is considered by some as all the argument required that god does not need a beginning.

And I have admit that I always give the «lawyer's argument» for the great book I'm teaching, while often merely alluding to criticisms both tentative and pointed.The Catholic approach is not appropriate for a teacher at a non-Catholic college, and my approach usually has the effect I can't completely explain of making my smart Christian students more Christian.

Name - dropping may not always be the most convincing argument, yet one has to show respect for any movement that can draw to itself support from such notables as Marshall McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller and Major General Franklin Davis, former commandant of the United States War College.

The argument has and will always be that the separation is that since the English Crown was the head of the church that the separation is so that the government can not interfere with the churches.

Even when an argument is won on pure logical grounds others are not necessarily going to be convinced, for logic does not equal plausibility and because pure logic always has its own inherent bias that makes people suspicious.

Kuhn reminds his critics that he always has maintained that there are «good reasons» and «hardheaded arguments» for choosing paradigms.

God must be non-contingent, as Aquinas» arguments and the Kalam argument show us that God was the «first cause», and therefore could not have been created (note: God did not need to be created because he has always been.

Pressing his argument further, this interesting Father discovers many resemblances between what he himself is preaching and what the pagans have always believed: «For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to Jupiter.

The argument of the martyr is always suspect; a cause which has martyrs is not necessarily a just cause.

Post such as yours will always be flawed because it can't get past the Christian - D as good and the Christian - R argument.

Why does it always have to be an argument?

I have always felt that dispensationalism and covenant theology (as well as many other arguments) miss the whole point of the Gospel.