Sentences with phrase «argumentation about»

Rather than argue about little rhetorical points and taking down someone else's article or points, I prefer to clarify the big picture issues, which is why I did this post rather than continue the argumentation about mainly rhetorical points on the previous two threads.

Using the example of the current debate surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, Thompson sought to evaluate the argument from authority through a single prism, the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy.

He argues that a «morality that is enforced by law must be tied to reason and subject to argumentation about how moral standards advance good in a way that is agreeable to many different groups.»

In this respect Hartshorne's book has the historical interest of Weiss's Philosophy in Process volumes; but unlike Weiss's historical reflections, Hartshorne's are always in the context of his familiar abstract argumentation about what must be true apriori.4

Not exact matches

«Let's take emotion out of it and just talk about it — I mean, the legal system is full of argumentation.

Even when not engaged in face - to - face argumentation, Jews and Christians spoke about each other in essentially disputational terms.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles of Peter and Paul, about the meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really mean when we talk about «biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.

As anyone who has mastered the time - honored art of argumentation and the Socratic Method can tell you, nothing will favorably end a debate quicker than a picture of Willy Wonka saying something snarky about Benghazi.

Generally, this type of maneuver is being described as «blacklisting,» and there's a lot of argumentation back and forth about whether it's fair, whether it's right, etc., etc..

I want to give you a lot of personal details, with the hope that 1) you don't see me as just talking about this stuff as abstract political argumentation, and 2) maybe I get to contribute something new / different to a familiar debate.

I was working with juniors in my AP language course on a unit about argumentation where we considered the following central question: should the U.S. use «enhanced interrogation techniques» as a means of preserving individual liberties?

Sales people are tasked with becoming aware of new product offerings, learning about them and integrating them into their thought processes, product argumentations and pitches.

So in terms of the actual rubrics and the critical attributes of the different levels of performance, I could only incorporate those aspects of the common standards that in fact apply everywhere — for example, those things we've been talking about like argumentation and conceptual understanding.

LDC gave us the opportunity to summarize research about and best practices in studying argumentation in social studies, science, and English Language Arts.

In other words, evidence or argumentation is about reasoning, using facts, the true judgment, the scientific data used to persuade the reader in the truth of what the essay is about.

In terms of this, there are certain nuances you should care about when writing an argumentation essay:

But to resort to this kind of argumentation it also makes you wonder about the confidence he has in his own argument.

; I suggest that this is a very common argument (perfected by Daly and acolytes) and we should think about this as a sub-category of argumentation and address it as such.

Victor, you no right to complain about lack of response, meaningful or otherwise, since you are guilty of practicing what you preach against: You have not responded — meaningfully or otherwise — to my comments at 120 and 156, in which I exposed the general illogic underling all your argumentation, this general illogic being the falsity that, given a cause and effect relationship established by the laws of physics, effects not manifesting as strongly as we would like is somehow some sort of legitimate argument that this cause and effect relationship established by the laws of physics is false.

The risk of continuing to base the argumentation on emission budgets is that they communicate a false certainty to society and policy makers leading to policies that seem to be based on scientifically derived probabilities, but are really just statements about what is possibly true.

Skeptics don't care about credentials, they care about quality of argumentation.

Not actually participating until he chose to make some observations about your style of argumentation.

And at the same time, you can't help but learn something about the fine art of argumentation from charts as practiced by the master himself, Steve McIntyre, and refined in his most devoted media outlet, the U.K. based Mail on Sunday.