Sentences with phrase «common argument of»

Bensimon challenged the common argument of a lack of diverse candidates for faculty positions.

A common argument of voucher school proponents is that these schools create competition for public schools, thereby increasing achievement across the board.

In the UK, a common argument of Conservatives is that any increase in taxes on high earners will make the country «uncompetitive» (in the sense that the rich will flee to foreign tax havens).

Not exact matches

A common problem working couples have is not being able to leave their personal life at home, which can lead to continuations of arguments in the office.

However, the court can not ignore the common - sense appeal of the plaintiff's argument; a literal reading of the statute undoubtedly accords more closely with their position.

The common argument against nationalized paid maternity leave is that it hurts businesses or that people will take advantage of the system.

One of the more common arguments is that farmers in the U.S. are subsidized.

It's the kind of common - sense, let - the - people - decide argument that would fit well in the mouth of a former public servant with a «higher loyalty» in mind.

[20] In essence, this was an early version of the conflict of interest argument made below: promoters were using nonvoting common stock as a way of maintaining voting control for themselves.

The most common argument banks use in favor of this practice is that it ensures that customer's largest expenses, such as a mortgage or car payment, get paid ahead of smaller debits.

One common argument they brought up is that the burdens of building a startup are more easily shared between people.

The author believes this argument conflates true pump - and - dump schemes from the common perception that cryptocurrencies are in a bubble (it's possible to be in the latter without being a product of the former).

This is the most common argument and also the one with the greatest amount of evidence rebutting it.

The classic straw - man argument, which unfortunately is quite common in this neck of the woods.

The second concept necessary for the encyclical's argument is the common good: «To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity.»

It is also a matter of political common sense: If you want an argument to be heard, engaged, and accepted, you make it in a language that those you are seeking to persuade can understand.

For the most part, we get the kind of government we want, which is why I don't buy the argument that progressive elites are sandbagging the common man and imposing a political and social order he abhors.

Common people, I saw that my comment upset you enough to reply to me, but not one of you could share a candidate that you prefer, or structure an argument as to why they have more experience than Romney to pull our country out of this mess?

Anyways, most of my arguments can be summed up in one sentence: hey, how about you use some common sense, be kind, love everyone, and don't be such an ass?

Launch an Arminianism Awareness Day to address some of the common misconceptions about Arminians — that we think grace is earned, that we have a «man - centered» theology, that we're all dispensationalists, that just because we lost that one argument with our Calvinist roommate back in 2003 we're always wrong.

In his final two sentences, however, he recognizes the contemporary urgency that is intrinsic to his argument: «The hope of solidarity itself, and the recognition of its attendant burdens, still weighs upon us today It has remained a fragile aspiration, as much in need of condensation into symbolic forms of requisite density and imaginative power as it ever was in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries of the Common Era.»

Indeed, the Common Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, sets forth in both the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles arguments in support of the death penalty that are subtle and leave much room for the exercise of prudence by lawmakers.

The argument is that the Chicago school arose in the context of the social gospel, a movement that had much in common with contemporary political theology and that, under the stimulus of political theology, this school can recover something of what it had lost as well as move forward in new ways.

No matter how heated his arguments became, he never lost sight of their common humanity; and proof of that is the emotional tributes his adversaries paid him upon his death.

This «orthogenetic» view of animal evolution is gradually becoming common ground among scientists; but it only achieves full validity, in terms of my argument, to the extent that it implies a continuous psychic «chain» going back to the beginning of life.

Religious arguments are, so they insist, superfluous in defending a traditional view of marriage: «Because marriage uniquely meets essential needs in such a structured way, it should be regulated for the common good, which can be understood apart from specifically religious arguments.»

Whether this practice achieves its common purpose, then, depends solely on the soundness of arguments, the opportunity for criticism, and common pursuit of the truth.

Rather than drawing attention to the distinctiveness of the Judeo - Christian tradition, liberal civil religion is much more likely to include arguments about basic human rights and common human problems.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

It may for instance be that some deed of loving service will touch a neighbor at a point of common humanity to communicate what argument could not.

Far more common these days are arguments rooted either in the rhetoric of equality or the rhetoric of contracts.

It seems on first glance that, within this common frame of reference, the argument between the churches focuses most intensely upon the relation between authority and office (under which I include matters of jurisdiction and polity).

Perhaps evangelicalism's most common argument concerning Biblical authority runs as follows: If one will grant the general reliability of the New Testament documents as verified historically, then, as the Holy Spirit uses this witness to create faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, the Christian comes to accept Jesus Christ as authoritative.

There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is true.

Unfortunately because of filters I can not post the whole argument but please see thedevineevidence website at the COMmon domain.

He did not spend his time preaching what everybody already believed, but he used these common agreements in the formulation of arguments on other topics.

In Rogerian argument, common values and goals are identified, and participants agree the desired outcome of the discussion isn't winning but rather arriving at a mutual solution and acknowledging the need to compromise.

In Rogerian argument, common values and goals are identified, and participants agree the desired outcome of the discussion isn't

Thank God for you, Fishon, because I can count on you staying «in play» (You may know the word «argument» (argo) originally stood for a process that could lead toward a shared «shine» or vision — common ground, on - the - same - page kind of a deal.

I don't bother with many other comment sections on the internet, so if she wants to explain to me how a complete lack of proof led her in one of the worst possible directions or how her lack of understanding of morals and ethics lead her to choose the most criminal of religious cults to join..., then that would be great and I'm sure we could all enjoy picking apart her arguments for her «conversion» to those of us who know the difference between reason, logic, common sense, and ethics and morals and empathy and sympathy... as I would guess she doesn't give a crap anyway I doubt she'll show up here.

The «You Too» argument is common rhetoric of defense.

Arising out of the Gospel traditions there is another common and important argument which runs like this.

Here I am advocating a canonical approach on a practical basis: if we want a «level playing field» in debates about the Bible and war and peace, we need to start with a common definition of what constitutes the Bible, what can be quoted in the argument.

The common argument against the validity of scripture is that over the course of centuries of reproduction it must have accidentally or intentionally changed.

Such a world rests upon the evidence of similarity, the correspondence of certain images and patterns with others, and the argument that such consonance implies a common form or structure in which similar objects participate.

The statement is superb both in its clear articulation of Christian teaching and its argument for the common good.

Of course, there are better arguments, but this common one should be abandoned.

The good common sense of this book's argument against the Enlightenment - induced idea that religion causes war is, in the end, not overcome by the problems noted.

In other words, I struggled to see the advancement of a central argument or common theme.

Our columnist Kurt Willems showcases both sides of the argument and seeks to lay a common ground.