Sentences with phrase «argument would actually»

Your - Mom - goes - to - College - Your argument would actually have some force if it were not for all the authors, speakers, artists, musicians, and others who got rich from selling religion to the world.

By following this line of argument you'd actually put on an overcoat in warmer weather.

Not exact matches

The best advice I can give you is to try to make sure that you've got some board members and other advisors (not investors) who've actually run businesses to help take your side in some of the silliest of these arguments.

Although both appellants and the government argue that the ACA, read in its totality, evinces clear congressional intent, they dispute what that intent actually is... We conclude that the appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an «Exchange established by the State,» and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges.

The questioning of uBeam has focused on two issues: the argument that the technology violates laws of physics and isn't actually possible, and the fear that the technology is unsafe and could cause health risks for people.

For the sake of argument, though, let's suppose that your team actually does have a need for better communication.

This could actually be arguments 1 through 10, but its many nuances are being boiled down to the essence of «there's just too much of it, and most of that is because all E.U. citizens have the right to come and work here.»

Compare a 4 % drop to the fact that unemployment grew across the country from around 4 % to almost 10 % in the same timeframe and you could make the argument that broker employment has actually held up better than that of most professions.

But the argument that Trump's plan is actually a cut for middle - class people does have some research behind it — even if the idea is still far outside the mainstream of economics.

When confronted with arguments that a 360 - hour threshold would actually help people in need, Stephenâ $ ™ s stock response is that there are «better ways of spending that money.»

We would actually dispute this conclusion, but decided to do so in a separate post (note: the report does not come out in favor of this conclusion either, it merely mentions the argument as one that is made by critics of bitcoin).

Crowe: You could certainly make that argument, but if you're looking from a growth pipeline perspective, you could even say that Spectra has more upside simply because their development portfolio has remained robust throughout the entire time, whereas Kinder Morgan over these past couple quarters has actually been trimming their backlog.

Although again I think that some of this would actually be broader long - term factors over productivity, which again comes back to that argument that I said about fiscal policy.

Another argument for burning cryptocurrencies is that a newly created token actually has value because of it.

It's not an argument about what actually has happened, or about what actually will happen.

A shame, really, because there actually are good, rational arguments for belief, if they'd only take the time to do some questioning, criticizing, and research.

So, if you have actually read a bible and have a better argument for me than «I want proof» (because there is none, it's a religious BELIEF) or that Christians judge people or hate people (because as a TRUE Christian you must not judge & you must love thy neighbor) then I'm all for it!

You see, the part that is inconsistent in your argument, is that you have no evidence that this god not only exists, but that he is actually a loving being.

if you'd actually give a hearing, you'd understand why the entire field of biblical scholarship (from left to right) is giving heed to this argument.

@ Jillienne «Stand YOUR own ground, don't expect people to forsake God by telling them how «impossible» it is for a man to be swallowed by a fish, an argument that really bears no weight actually, because frankly, if you believe that Dinosaurs once roamed the earth (a proven fact) there is nothing wrong with believing a man could have been swallowed by a giant whale... it's really not that strange..»

Chudacoff, who throughout his book tends to introduce the theme of homosexuality with hints and surmises rather than data, counters Stott's argument with this: «More recently [actually less recently — in 1985 and 1988] other historians have discovered hints [of homosexual relations].»

If you actually had any valid counter arguments to what I'm saying you would offer them.

You tried to claim otherwise the other day, but you never actually had any argument, every point you tried to make was shot down because there was no logic or reason behind it, so you failed.

If someone could actually cite evidence of resurrection, it would certainly go a long way toward proving your argument.

your argument has no basis whatsoever... just because it is described in detail does not automatically make it as something that actually exists!!

I would like to see Live4Him actually admit to the math mistake in their argument, and promise not to use this ridiculous argument ever again.

Chad: Your stupid argument is actually IN FAVOR of pro-choice, which demands that a mother should have the right to terminate if the pregnancy threatens her life!

Also, even if what you said were true, it would only be an argument for believing there is a God, not that God actually exists.

I've got a beef with Aquinas, well, actually people who still use Aquinas's arguments today.

Have you taken the time to actually look at how they handle themselves when it comes to offspring, relationships, arguments, etc.?

@Freya, You actually have an earlier premise then which all other points of your argument rest on: 1) The bible is true.

My argument has presented an analysis of the extensive continuum which clearly makes it true to say that the extensive continuum, as just that set of actual relations among actual occasions which makes the very conception of the continuum as real potentiality intelligible, is indeed actually increased in extent by the concrescence of new occasions.

Faith isn't half as cartoonish or clearly defined as those who diminish it: If you only base your arguments against faith from academic texts, magazine articles or «arguments» you've had online, well, then who's actually poorly educated on the subject?

I would take great pleasure in a discussion with Hutchison on this point, but I will restrain myself since that was not actually part of my argument.

If, for example, you've ever struggled with what Romans 9 - 11 has to do with the rest of the letter, Wright's view makes these chapters not only fit within the flow of Paul's argument, but actually become the pinnacle and the climax of Romans.

Rufus, it would be fun if someone came along and actually defended theistic evolution with knowledge, conviction and some sound arguments.

It's actually kinda funny to watch because it disproves the atheist argument to pieces (that atheism isn't a religion but they have made it into a religion nowadays.

And he must have remembered how he himself had come to faith — not simply because he had been convinced by argument but, in large measure, because the Christian faith struck him as a «myth» that had actually become «fact.»

I disagree with your theory, but I would have maybe taken you seriously if you actually spelled fantasy right... There goes your argument.

I think Hannon and I actually agree that the debate should be about the procreative / non - procreative sexual dichotomy and not the same - sex / opposite - sex dichotomy, and that we differ only in what the solution should be; this subject is the area in which I would have preferred a stronger and less assumptive argument.

Other commentaries brought out how the Pharisees probably had a bit of conundrum, because Jesus didn't actually grind any herbs or use any medicine and so the argument could have been made that he had not violated the Sabbath.

This argument actually has some merit.

... though actually, now I think of it, there's a nasty argument lurking in there along the lines of «yes, well, Mary might have been Middle Eastern but we're pretty sure God is white (like Santa, beard and everything) and that's why Jesus would look white».

Guns are off - the - shelf ready to kill, and while people like to reason from the outlier cases (the self - defense argument), unless you're a bail bondsman or a police officer, you are more likely to have your own gun used on you than to actually have an opportunity to use it to defend yourself.

For the record, this in no way is an argument against gay marriage and as an atheist I find it ridiculous that this is actually a big debate we're having in our country, let alone that there is just an incredible amount of opposition.

actually BOOTY you are using the same arguments that proselytizers use — that we believe you are doing something bad so we have to save you from yourself.

I actually had an argument with some guy the other day that our nation is not a democracy and he just called me unamerican...

If you actually read those «opposite arguments», I guessing you would find that they are not worth believing.

But most of the energy in Catholic moral theology has gone into making arguments showing that what used to be prohibited can actually be licit.

And no, I actually have no idea what Biblical arguments you are referring to (although I would not try to undermine marriage and believe it important).