Sentences with phrase «argumentation where»

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?

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves.

Not exact matches

This is where Hartshorne could, and in some implicit ways does, drive a wedge in Brightman's view, because Brightman is willing as a point of method to collapse metaphysical questions into epistemological questions.29 Hartshorne is not so willing, and thinks personalism must employ both inductive (empirical) and transcendental argumentation to support its own claims.

It's just cheeky enough to get people to read the first chapter, where Joe and John Coleman begin their systematic rehabilitation of Christian argumentation and persuasion.

Above all, of course, is (2 Corinthians 15, where it is especially obvious in his circular argumentation of verses 12 - 13 2 — I «Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

Where his argumentation is based on God's everlastingness, which however — in the absence of the reversal of poles as an argument — remains ill - founded, my argumentation is based on the reversal of God's poles, which is well - founded in Whitehead's metaphysics.

Where I say: God's aim (that of God's consequent nature) is achieved, and remains open, because it is an aim which continually «shifts» (and can be such because God's aim is formally independent of any actual world whatsoever, but materially consequent on the evolving world, Nobo says: the aim of God's primordial nature is never achieved, but the data available at the beginning of every stage are synthesized every time, and this is sufficient for prehensibility — not the same argumentation, as can be seen, but a closely related one, indeed.

This goes against prevalent modes of argumentation in modern political thought, where solidarity and responsibility are mostly defined in terms of shared social or political identities.

Look to a scene driving back from Cannes where a decade or so of French cinema plays out in one conversation, the petty argumentation and indifference wonderfully captured within the proscenium of a car windshield.

Are there other areas where the argumentation is not clear?

«Dilemma» comes from rhetoric — argumentation — where it means an attempt to compel your opponent to choose between (only) two equally unpalatable alternatives (the «horns» of the dilemma); now it means any difficult problem.

Your «argument» here is essentially a «guilt trip» and is a well known argumentation fallacy where one attacks the person putting forth arguments rather than the arguments themselves.