Sentences with phrase «basic arguments used»

That rebuttal will give you some of the basic arguments used by some conservatives in their rebuttals of much of Wink's writing.

Not exact matches

The basic argument behind the memo is this: Clinton's presidential campaign funded the creation of the Steele dossier, and the FBI used the dossier as the flimsy basis for a warrant to surveil Page.

We are not likely to win this battle for basic human rights using the argument that the bible has no value.

He explained his belief in God by using the basic argument from contingency which postulates an Efficient Cause.

Most recently, Bowman Clarke has used the claim that genetic succession is not in time in any sense to undermine John Cobb's basic argument (CNT 185 - 89) for the societal view (JAAR 48:563 - 79).

It's about basic logic used to conduct arguments (rational or otherwise) and have conversations.

Last, and paradoxically, the word «inerrancy» undermines its apologetic intent by reflecting a defensiveness toward Scripture that is out of keeping with the gospel's own boldly proclaimed confidence.52 For these reasons, Hubbard has become increasingly uncomfortable with the use of the term «inerrancy» to describe his basic commitment to Scripture's infallibility, though he has no basic argument with those like Pinnock who use the term as qualified and understood Biblically.

The basic argument of Bailey is that 1 Corinthians is composed of five major Prophetic Rhetorical Homilies, all of which use numerous types and formats of these Middle - Eastern thought structures.

It is possible to respond to these arguments by saying that our basic intuitions need to be revised so as to be in keeping with a «loose and popular» sense of identity and not a «strict and philosophical» sense, to use Bishop Butler's terminology.

And while there is always disagreement on the varieties of preparation, such as whether one should use a dry rub or a wet rub and various other culinary arguments, all of the many sauces used in America generally will fall into one of those four basic groups.»

From a legal standpoint, there are two main laws that the observer may use in arguments with Committee members, in courts etc: Federal Law 67 «On basic guarantees» (lays down the rules for elections and referendums) and the Federal Law «On Presidential Election in the Russian Federation».

@Brythan your argument may be valid, but «we are better off not changing until we need to do so» is IMO a pretty questionable basic attitude: what if we use up almost all of the oil and then ten years later discover a fabulous new use of the stuff that nobody has though of before?

In the 1970s, astronomers Vera Rubin and Kent Ford used the same basic arguments to show, in much more convincing detail, that spiral galaxies appear to keep their shapes because of the gravitational glue from nearby dark matter.

In his mammoth work Elements, written around 300 B.C., Euclid began by writing down axioms — basic assumptions whose truth was assumed to be self - evident — and using them, with logically sound arguments, to deduce the theorems of geometry.

«This finding supports the argument that it's not just a few students who are having trouble using retrieval - based strategies when they are expected to do so, and the prevalence of this problem suggests that researchers need to stop looking for explanations that are based on cognitive deficit, which are thought to originate with the child, but focus more on understanding how teaching practices can contribute and even hinder children's development of basic number fact fluency.»

The resources used together help students to understand the basic arguments / issues that surround euthanasia.

Fanfiction writers are perceived by many to have no rights over their fanfic stories (although there is an argument for «fair use» (see this interview with Rebecca Tushnet, a legal advocate for the Organization for Transformative Works), and thus there is an assumption that they will leap at the chance to earn 35 % royalties, even if they sign away all rights beyond basic copyright.

Using simple physical laws to explain the basics of some mechanism is in principle very effective way to convince people of the validity of your argument.

«Rigorous processes» may help avoid a hockey - stick fiasco, but there are still two very basic problems: a) the proxy data themselves are often dicey, especially when the time scale is large, and b) the interpretation of the data is based on an «argument from ignorance» (i.e. «we can only explain this if we assume...»), where unknown factors are simply ignored and it is falsely assumed that we have the knowledge of all factors that could possibly have been involved; if these studies are used to provide evidence for a preconceived hypothesis, I think they are next to worthless.

Sadly the same basic arguments were made in an article written in Waste Age in 1993 promoting the use of paper - pellets as a substitute for coal.

So, in case there is now or there will be some newbie to these arguments who may have been confused by the disinformation you (and Memphis) have been producing here, here is an example from a genuine study to remind of what the AGWSF fisics passes off as real physics, as used generally in all the variety of science studies because this has been introduced into the education system and, apart from the applied scientists in the field who can spot this is fake, the majority simply take it as if real physics basics:

Your argument is flawed in its basic premise; you are using logic and reason.

What I am reading here are all sorts of a) rationalizations that «it can't be correct because I do not agree with...», b) arguments that it «violates basic physics» or c) other theoretical objections to equations used or suggested, but these are all utterly meaningless, unless the authors of the paper concede that these arguments have invalidated their conclusions (which has not occurred as yet.)

The argument to «learn what else drives climate» is a complete red herring, as if scientists are not already figuring out everything they can (which in turn is then being repeatedly re shaped to use to try to refute Climate Change by «skeptic» websites, as is everything), and is just used as another false refutation of, or confusion on, the basic assessment and risk range that the at this point fairly well known and well substantiated general concept of Climate Change represents.

As far as convincing the people who won't believe anything that Al Gore has to say... we could use better basic science education in this country, as well as more journalists with at least some scientific training — enough to allow them to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the climate denialist's arguments, at least.

We know there's been lots of haggling over the use of corn as bio-polymer (the argument is that some producers are using genetically - modified crops, a potentially hazardous resource), but we think the basic idea remains a good one.

In the same book, Farrow makes a number of arguments against what he refers to as the privatization of civil justice, such as the impoverishment of common law when cases are removed from the public system (this dovetails with Simpson's work), the use of a private (thus, confidential) system to circumvent public policies, public accountability, and basic notions of procedural fairness, and the shielding from the public of transactions that would not withstand public scrutiny.

The SRL usually is not versed in legalese and when they tell the facts or make argument using everyday language that says the exact same thing the legalese says the judges pretend not to understand (in some cases they actually may not understand, I find them often very unaware of basic legal principles) so they take the easy and safest way out by saying the one word that works for them - dismissed.

Here's the basic structure of what an argument in favor of fair use (17 USC § 107) would look like:

«Whenever you use the D - word in an argument you are removing safety, security, and trust from a relationship, which are basic human needs.»