You would think that if you're basing
your argument on a single point, you would try to make sure that that particular fact is correct.
Not exact matches
If sociologists have tended to center
on the foregoing
argument and to
single out work as the basis of their assessment of our present inability to play authentically, theologians and philosophers have tended to: focus upon a second area: America's distorted value structure that has accepted as true the «mindscape» of technology 48 This is Theodore Roszak's phrase, and his discussion can perhaps serve as a helpful starting
point.
Viewers picked holes pretty quickly in Clegg's «Lib Dems for coalition» pitch to conference,
pointing out that his condemnation of
single - party rule therefore undermines any
argument that Lib Dem majority (or minority) government rule would be preferable, thus making his much - applauded line «In an ideal world, I wouldn't have to work with either of them because I'd be Prime Minister
on my own thank you very much — and I'd like to think I'd do a better job too» fall rather flat.
The idea is to always hone in
on every
single argument point raised, and to totally demolish each
point using sound reason, logic, and a mountain of incontrovertible evidence....
He made the
point well that much of the
argument about climate consists of the scientists having to refute claims made by sceptics based
on minutiae without regard for the bigger picture (2008 being colder than 1998 despite the general warming trend, or corrections upwards to the temperature of a
single Tasmanian weather station despite the fact overall there was no bias).
PS love the «hey I can't counter a
single point you made
argument style so I going to focus
on one tiny little
point and hope that I can wing it from there».