Sentences with phrase «best argument is made»

No, the best argument is made by considering what we're doing currently with our programme to create 16gw of new nuclear power — about 10 reactors, on five or six sites — by 2025.

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.

There's a very strong argument to be made to the effect that the key way in which lawyers serve society — their key social responsibility — is by serving their clients well.

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.

Clark said Vancouver is «actively lobbying» for the RMB centre and believes it makes the better argument over its Toronto competitor.

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

If Trump wants to argue that U.S. - Mexico trade relations have been lousy for the better part of three decades, then that's an argument he's free to make.

His whole argument that he wouldn't be able to negotiate a good deal with Play - Doh unless he had a controlling stake in Soy - Yer - Dough made no sense, as Herjevac pointed out.

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.

There's still a chance to do something effective, Johnson says, but it will require a strong and independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency and the dismantling of the six American banks that have grown too big to fail — and if he isn't the first to make the argument, 13 Bankers nonetheless lends it a good deal of substance.

While I truly want to be with you on the hands - off - free - market argument, I just have to believe that these rules are in place for good reasons... like making sure your sweet Granny don't get fleeced by a huckster.

On this point, it's best to avoid «common knowledge» because the common arguments consumers make against refinancing can be quietly misleading.

Use data to drive better decision - making, because it trumps any arguments that are opinion - based or anecdotal.

In fact one could even make the argument that the best trade for that type of situation is a long gold / short gold stocks position, but we digress.

Consequently, a good argument can be made that the «core fundamentals» are now worse than they were when the gold price was $ 350 - $ 400.

The argument that can be made that having roots as a joke may not have been a good long - term strategy.

So it's not only longer than the bonds we were issuing then but the argument, «well, it's not really that much longer than this bond is,» is perhaps that extrapolation that makes me a little bit nervous, that there is too much complacency.

And a good argument can be made that this idea creates a large portion of the drama and confusion around native advertising.

Your first stop should be the Canadian government, which has, in cases where there's a good argument, made representation on behalf of Canadian businesses who get caught in this quagmire.

You might want to re-read what Ted M. initially posted, and then your responses... to me at least... what you wrote was not an isomorphic argument that in any way refuted Ted's, and i think - Ace made reference to that as well as - Ted.

Design is an often neglected component of good content marketing and it is Canva's goal to make that argument to the content - marketing community as a whole.

Recently some conservatives have made the argument that torture (including water boarding) can be moral, because in some cases the good that will come of the torture («saving LA») outweighs the harm.

For example there is no reasonable argument to be made from a secular viewpoint to oppose gay marriage that can not be said to oppose hetero marriage as well.

Perhaps the best part of Secretary Clinton's speech was when she took on arguments against religious liberty made by authoritarians in places like Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and China.

Ms. Morthole is trying to justify her continued sinning with very weak arguments on how sinning makes her feel good about herself.

The argument might be made that any identity is better than none, but it strikes us that these people are truly desperate.

My experience in being a team member and leading teams tells me that it just takes one loud voice to ruin an otherwise convivial gathering and that making things good for everyone requires satarising any pretentiousness and deconstructing any evil argument in order to render said loud voice powerless.

Regardless, it's not as nice to have the frame of a well made argument dismissed as irrelevant when I didn't quote scripture or say I'd pray for you, right?

your immature, irrational and absolute blind remarks toward atheism have been proved that there is no rational argument beyond this point, I suggest you read my post to the fullest and absorb it's meaning, and continue to act like a civilized being, your behavior is not acceptable in any rational debate, you are not making yourself look good.

A more reasonable argument against wine is made based on an interpretation of Romans 14:21: «It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.»

My understanding is that this family is pretty well off financially, but the welfare, healthcare and education arguments still beg the question of why my government keeps taking the money I earn and indiscriminately rewarding it to people that make bad decisions.

It is no accident that Percy summons Flannery O'Connor to such questions as well; but unlike her, he does not anchor his response in St. Augustine and St. Paul (we have here no abiding place) nor in St. Thomas, whose argument is insistent that the poet's, the artist's, responsibility is to the good of the thing being made, not with the correction of appetites in his audience.

Do your rallying where it does the most good and for God sake, make your arguments about more then «so and so wants us to be poor» and «so and so just wants to be rich».

Maggie Gallagher has been making eloquent, sophisticated arguments proving simple (some would say self - evident) truths for years now: Marriage is good for spouses, children, and society at large; or, in her words, married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially.

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.

Apparently, this absolute morality argument isn't about whether something is «good» or «bad» or causes pain or suffering, it's about abdicating any personal responsibility in making such a decision.

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.

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.Hate against any group of people you dis - agree is still hate and is not tolerable in my opinion.

This book is a convincing argument for getting your kids dirty, and making sure they are outside — and it's benefitted me, as well.

If you make good points, I may even comment, or notify my blog readers that I am changing my views because of your compelling Scriptural and theological arguments.

Kirsten: There's an article in The New York Times about Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens basically making this argument that for the first 200 years of the country it was just accepted that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a well - regulated militia.

The only argument that makes sense for Christians is to claim that God, working with believing players to give them the courage to be better ones on both sides of every game, ultimately makes the game a better one, and more entertaining.

However, the main point that I was trying to make is that I object to you blindly asserting that «believers» can not furnish logical, well - reasoned arguments in support of their position.

Here David Brooks makes the argument that Elena Kagan, Obama's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, is reminscent of our elite schools» «Organization Kids» — bright, disciplined, articulate, and well - meaning junior careerists who do everything necessary to get ahead in....

It is the better part of any argument you make.

You have yet to directly respond to the specific points I've made at least three times now, i.e.: 1) the immutable good nature argument is simply unsupported definitional fiat (god can be equally described as malevolent or apathetic with equal support); 2) the immutable good nature argument presents a source of morality beyond god's direct control placing the argument in the god says so because it is good prong of the dilemma; and 3) the argument suggests god is not omnipotent because god is constrained to only a limited set of potential behaviors.

But a compelling philosophical argument can be made for the view that gay is not good, which means that it should be considered a disease in the same way as all the other sexual disorders in the DSM.

But Rabbi David Novak of the University of Toronto, a frequent contributor to these pages, makes a convincing argument that the mutual dependence of rights and duties can best be conceived in terms of covenantal fidelity.

Now most everyone would agree that it's not good to do that but my point is moral argument should have no place when making laws.

But, even more, Pascal's argument needs infinity to make itself run: The infinitely good consequences of belief, and infinitely bad consequences of disbelief, are necessary to overcome the minutely small possibilities it says it answers.