Sentences with phrase «as an argument if»

Saying someone «has no clue» is not convincing as an argument if it's not accompanied by actual reasons, lines of evidence, etc..

Not exact matches

Also, if somebody thinks they are ready for the next level (promotion), they can quickly check their position and prepare a good argument as to why they deserve it.

As Eddie Nuvakhov, CEO and producer of LNC Productions, a company that specializes in marketing videos explains, «You need to show people how your product is going to change their lives for the better, and not just what the product is, if you want to make a convincing argument for its purchase.

As well - outfitted as this tablet might be, it is unclear if the company can make an argument for the cost of such a tooAs well - outfitted as this tablet might be, it is unclear if the company can make an argument for the cost of such a tooas this tablet might be, it is unclear if the company can make an argument for the cost of such a tool.

Taxing them at higher rates is an increasingly popular argument, but as usual, who knows if anyone is listening to Cuban's blog rants.

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.

The trouble with this argument is that it's not exactly as if the realisation that many data series exhibit seasonality occurred suddenly overnight.

If Dimon and his compatriots would commit to hiring on this scale then it would serve as a credible argument in favor of the Trump administration's plans.

And all along, investors bought the argument: Even if the number of pay TV subscribers had stalled, the big media companies seemed as though they were going to wring more money out of the customers they did have — and could sell more stuff to Web TV entrants like Netflix and Amazon.

I don't know why people, in attempting to provide a refutation of an argument, consistently rebut arguments by simply mentioning their nationality, as if being of a certain nationality designates one as an expert in all matters concerning that nation and serves as sufficient qualification to denounce a valid opposition viewpoint.

If the argument has any merit or sometimes simply if the investor is famous enough, the shares plunge as investors sell their shares or others sell the stock shorIf the argument has any merit or sometimes simply if the investor is famous enough, the shares plunge as investors sell their shares or others sell the stock shorif the investor is famous enough, the shares plunge as investors sell their shares or others sell the stock short.

If you make assumptions about why demand for loans is slack among small businesses and then treat that as a fact which underpins your whole argument, it makes it difficult to treat this as anything beyond opinion.

As I understand the arguments, if I save a portion of my wage or other income and keep it in my mattress or other «safe» place, I am accumulating «savings».

If Benchmark had no problem with the voting agreement for 14 months, as Kalanick alleges, then that could help Kalanick's argument against the need for an injunction.

Is an increase from 2.6 % of GDP in 1981 to 3.1 % of GDP in 2012 unsustainable?  Yes, I suppose so, if this rate of increase continues for another few centuries. The same argument the CFIB makes for municipal spending could be made for corporate profits but far moreso. After adjusting for inflation, corporate profits have increased by 245 % since 1992, doubling as a share of GDP and growing at a rate of ten times Canadaâ $ ™ s cumulative population growth of just 23 % since 1992.

If they win that case, and the court upholds that argument, it's hard to see how the SEC could continue to let them go on deceiving investors by holding themselves out as advisers.

As my colleague Dylan Matthews points out, it's a bit of a strange argument, because even if a new NAFTA boosted US economic growth, funds for the wall would still come from US taxpayers.

Atheists, the bottom line is this: if there is no God, no afterlife and as a result of that no standard of behavior, your arguments to disprove him are pointless.

Its also the people who think they can simply turn around any argument aimed at their group, as if that were valid without actual evidence.

Yes, «bring it on» as if this idiot hasn't lost every argument already.

In addition, Posner's advice to religious theorists is probably not offered seriously, for Posner would likely follow the reflexive tendency of his colleagues to rule explicitly religious arguments out of bounds if he encountered them in either of his two roles as judge or professor.

She seems content to rehash John Bosewell's long since refuted arguments and pretend as if Christian scholarship has not already handled these bad arguments.

For a minute there I was wondering if Chad was going to trot out the old «they are better off as slaves» argument

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!

Russ Bauckham uses the Gospels themselves as internal evidence of their own eyewitness accounts but, if you're willing to accept the Gospels as trustworthy by their own declaration and you're easily impressed by the force of the author's argument alone then it might be compelling.

Oh and if you want to have interesting debates in the future with people and not get labelled as a troll then learn how to form logical arguments.

Lincoln exploded this as preposterous, demonstrating their behavior's incompatibility with the Constitution, pointing out that if they really wanted to claim revolutionary grounds for action, they should have the courage to make that argument instead, and resting his own argument on the principles of the Declaration.

The problem with your argument is most gods on this planet have rule books, you can't have the freedom to do as you want if you believe in those particular gods.

For a minute there I was wondering if Chad was going to trot out the «they are better off as slaves» argument.

as with every other argument about christianity, if it really was only a belief it would be of no consequence, but unfortunately so many use their religious beliefs as an excuse to attempt to demand the rest of the population adhere to their beliefs by codifying them into civil law.

So if you want me to acknowledge your original argument» Atheism is a religion» then you must concede the point that you being an Aunicornist, Afairyist and an Aflying spagetti monsterist possess all these as your religion too.

Chad, your issue is you keep trotting out the same tired arguments as if they haven't been answered and then decide that god is the only way to answer your questions.

Faith, your argument would almost make sense if tons of Americans didn't label every Muslim as a terrorist.

Pelikan summarized the Protestant way of putting the argument: «If the Holy Trinity was just as holy as the Trinitarian dogma taught, and if original sin was as virulent as the Augustinian tradition said it was, and if Christ was as necessary as the Christological dogma implied, then the only way to treat justification in a manner faithful to the Catholic tradition was to teach justification by faith.&raquIf the Holy Trinity was just as holy as the Trinitarian dogma taught, and if original sin was as virulent as the Augustinian tradition said it was, and if Christ was as necessary as the Christological dogma implied, then the only way to treat justification in a manner faithful to the Catholic tradition was to teach justification by faith.&raquif original sin was as virulent as the Augustinian tradition said it was, and if Christ was as necessary as the Christological dogma implied, then the only way to treat justification in a manner faithful to the Catholic tradition was to teach justification by faith.&raquif Christ was as necessary as the Christological dogma implied, then the only way to treat justification in a manner faithful to the Catholic tradition was to teach justification by faith.»

To those who call the therapy dangerous, Mr. Bitzer reverses the argument: «If I'd known about these therapies as a teen I could have avoided a lot of depression, self - hatred and suicidal thoughts,» he said at his apartment in Los Angeles.

I don't know if the argument was as prescient as Wolfson and many other policy experts claim, but who am I to argue?

«The truth will win out, the best arguments will win and we should hear them and listen to them, work out what's wrong with them, if there is something wrong and refute them as they need to be refuted and that's the way a free society works.»

If you REALLY want to learn about your religion, read materials that offer compelling arguments AGAINST you interests and thoughtfully consider them in light of what you were TOLD as a child.

If We are to «Go G - dless» as the graphic suggests just because a few Fools abuse religion, then by the same logic We should also abstain from alcohol just because a few Fools drive drunk, abstain from communicating just because a few Fools put forth unsound argument, and abstain from eating just because a few Fools eat too much.

If as you say, «two wrongs [don't] make a right argument» then why not debate @Blarg's statement instead of inciting atheists condemnation of his / her arguments by indirectly making a blanket statement about how Atheist should be offended?

Out of all the postings on this site today, I found «Derp's «post the most fascinating and informative, as well as deeply revealing.Even after boasting of what seems to be a practically perfect live by any measure, he informs us that he takes pleasure in mocking and ridiculing those of faith who are presumably his opposite; I can only wonder if, given all his supposed accomplishments, he is smart enough to realize how deeply revealing of his true character his remarks are.As a believer, I rarely engage in arguments with my atheist friends, and like to think I wouldn't lower myself to the level of juvenile name - calling and personal attacks against whatever my atheist friends hold dear.Most of the time we simply agree to disagree; when they hold forth with misinformation or ignorance on their assumed «knowledge «of my faith, I try to gently correct them; I certainly don't allow any disagreements we have to devolve into hateful insults and name - calling.

If AtheistHunter can not make a cogent argument with resorting to spewing Bible verses, he might as well give up now.

Wesley did make some comments that sound like the «slippery - slide» argument of Harold Lindsell: «If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand.

Some Christians need to stop acting as if a.) The American Right = Christianity and b.) that «Christianity is true because it is» is a good argument

If one has to resort to swearing and foul language then his argument has already lost and as a result his only option is an attemept to get the the one who bettered him to drop to his level.

For in spite of its prima facie attraction, and even if there is such a «primal» experience, that experience would not be accessible in any philosophically helpful way, could not be exploited without reliance upon the very analyses and arguments whose lack of immediacy and authority the appeal is seeking to escape, could not (even for oneself) sustain translation into the discursive and dialectical combat zone of philosophy, and could not by itself alone provide a nonarbitrary basis for determining what in it is essential to experience merely as such.

I'm saying that if the argument works equally well for all religions, then it's fvcking stupid as fvck..

Even if the argument is valid or scientifically support, such as when human life begins.

It just makes yall» look awful desperate... as if your pro-choice arguments are sinking as fast as Smith's Mazda.

Obviously, so the argument goes, if we want to cut teenage pregnancies and abortions we must have access to sexual health services — in other words, teenagers are less likely to get pregnant if they are using contraception; failing contraception, then we should give them access to the morning - after pill, which may be seen as preferable to a twelve - year - old getting pregnant.