Sentences with phrase «convincing argument of»

The kids repeated what they had learned about identity and performance theories and finally got to the more convincing argument of discrimination.

Tracing Haneke's career from his debut trilogy produced in Vienna to Funny Games U. S. (2007), discussed in the coda, this monograph provides a very convincing argument of Haneke's cinema as both a balance between and an alternative to classical realist cinema and counter-cinema.

The truth is that neither the rebels nor the loyalists can offer a convincing argument of how, respectively, either ditching Clegg or sticking by him will improve Lib Dem chances in May 2015.

Once or twice a month I'd bring up the possibility of adopting a puppy, and he would say it would be too much work, that we should wait until we have a house with a yard etc., and then I would respond with the ever - convincing argument of «but I waaaaaant one!»

Not exact matches

Ragan gives a convincing argument that Milton Friedman would be a fan of Quantitative Easing.

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.

But this was the least convincing part of Frankels argument.

In the notice of his decision, New York Supreme Court Justice Manuel Mendez supported the arguments made by Schneiderman at the November 25 hearing and did not appear to be sympathetic to or convinced by those of DraftKings or FanDuel attorneys.

Each of these components alone can create a strong argument, but together their build your pitch into something memorable and convincing.

But the most convincing argument came from Roland Jones, a colleague of Bailey's at University of Bath.

It's not an easy question to answer, mostly because both sides of the debate come to the table with some convincing arguments.

The specialists agree that the benefits to the consumer are at the heart of the anti-trust debate with efficiency arguments less convincing

Leerink analyst Ana Gupte said in a note to clients that the benefits to the consumer are «at the heart of the antitrust debate with efficiency arguments less convincing.»

«Canadians broadly believe in shifting towards cleaner sources of energy, because they are convinced doing so will benefit the planet, and are unconvinced by the argument that such a transition would gravely damage the economy.

First, the Bank of Canada convinces the Department of Finance and the Conservatives that it «needs» expanded powers to purchase a broader range of securities (see my earlier post for why their arguments are not very convincing).

Still, it's not exactly a convincing argument; acquisitions also incur significant costs: the price of the acquired asset includes a premium that usually more than covers whatever cost savings might result, and there are significant additional costs that come from integrating two different companies.

Perhaps the most convincing argument I have heard this week in response to Kenney's opposition to Bill 24 came in the form of a comment on Facebook:

David had also come across a speech by former BP chief executive, Lord Browne, in which he spoke of the warnings company scientists had sounded about climate change, and how their arguments convinced him that it was wrong to side with climate denial.

One of the things that may make Mr. Ham's arguments convincing for some is his use of other qualified scientists.

None of this means I'm fully convinced by the arguments of the market monetarists.

But as I drove home, I myself became less convinced, not of the immediate soundness of my argument, but of the long - term philosophical adequacy and stability of the legal framework within which I had made it.

I am convinced that the question of justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest argument, in favor of faith in eternal life.

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical but sly arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

i haveread the article of mr Khalid Latif, and his arguments overall did not convince me.

You said, «You may say that you can not convince believers of your argument because they lack reasoning and thinking.»

@Vic: If you want to believe something badly enough you can convince yourself of almost anything, because when you want to believe something you evaluate potential arguments and evidence through the lens of a very strong bias.

So the United Methodist bishops reject the traditional just - war argument because «we are convinced that no... use of nuclear weapons offers any reasonable hope of success» (p. 13) If we don't get peace, what might happen to us?

When the argument from creation to Creator had begun to lose convincing power, even before the rise of modern evolutionary thinking, Immanuel Kant proposed that we think of God in relation to our ethical experience rather than cosmology.

See P. Gardiner - Smith, St. John and the Synoptic Gospels (1938), a very convincing argument for «John's» complete independence of the Synoptics.)

Perhaps one of the most convincing arguments against religion is how nasty, hateful, vindictive and arrogant believers are when it comes to dealing with anyone who doesn't follow their cult, and how defensive and dismissive they become when you start asking probing, difficult to answer questions.

The present discussion on the gap provides no convincing argument that the technology owners will change their attitudes and policies towards the international transfer of technology.

The chief argument of this book up to this point represents the thinking of great numbers in the Western world and will presumably, therefore, be convincing to many readers who have given serious thought to the problem of the reconstruction of civilization in our time.

So one of the most stupid arguments of atheists, about not «seeing» God does nothing to convince but a few fools.

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

It is an attractive argument and most definitely one that convinces the equality campaigners who would have Gary McFarlane and Lillian Ladele suffer the loss of their livelihood for adhering to their beliefs.

At Harvard there were the idealist Hocking, whose poetic intuitions seemed to me profound, but whose arguments seemed mostly loose and unsatisfying (nevertheless it was he who convinced me that God was not immutable); Ralph Barton Perry, whose criticism of idealism and monism were challenging and impressive in their apparent rigor; and two brilliant logicians, Sheffer and Lewis.

Instead of endorsing separation, the Danbury Baptists continued to make the traditional disestablishment arguments, convinced, as many early Americans were, that separating church from state was not only misguided, but inconsistent with Christian social action.

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.

Not convincing» which is funny circular argument because you state that everyone of that age «average education level of individuals is higher now than in the dark ages» so by your standard nothing of that age can be verified?

In retrospect, the arguments I have been advancing in favor of my interpretation of the principle of process seem straightforwardly simple and, I hope, convincing.

If his thesis is built around his interpretation of that verse then it is going to be difficult to sell the idea unless he makes a convincing argument against John 16:32 and Psalm 22, for me at least.

And a convincing argument can be made that, for serious Christians and Jews, a truly adequate education is education in the fullness of truth presented as the truth.

It is not his job to frame an argument; convince the higher clergy and rank - and - file Roman Catholics of its correctness; communicate his message well; ground the message in Scripture; or expand the message beyond a «Catholic issue.»

Although, as I have shown elsewhere, 1 I am among those who are not convinced that he has managed to prove thereby the existence of God, I do not consider that Hartshorne's work on the argument can consequently be ignored.

Name - dropping may not always be the most convincing argument, yet one has to show respect for any movement that can draw to itself support from such notables as Marshall McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller and Major General Franklin Davis, former commandant of the United States War College.

Wow - a very convincing argument if you had a SHRED of evidence to support it.

Instead they (atheists) simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).»

Instead they simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).

They often have just enough knowledge of the material to sound intelligent, and make a half - decent argument, which is convincing, but they don't understand it so they're blindly following something.