Sentences with phrase «different arguments in»

English: Students are asked to review newspaper commentary on a current political issue in debate in Australia such as asylum seekers or same - sex marriage and develop an understanding of the many different arguments in the debate.

Defense attorneys present a variety of different arguments in order to reduce or avoid liability in personal injury cases.

Do not end up giving solutions on different arguments in your essay conclusion.

Not exact matches

In the end, Morrissey's book seems to be making a different argument than he supposes.

This would insinuate that you should use both the power of stories and the «logical» argument in different phases.

Rather than taking the time to carefully consider a different perspective, they generalize anything and everything you say, making blanket statements that don't acknowledge the nuances in your argument or take into account the multiple perspectives you've paid homage to,» Thought Catalog says, summing up this behavior.

For me, though I learned a lot in college, the skill I continue to use on a daily basis in my consulting business is the ability to look at my own argument or point of view and examine why someone else might have a different perspective.

On the day of the third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, Trump's team tested 175,000 different ad variations for his arguments, in order to find the right versions above all via Facebook.

In 2016, I wrote a blog responding to the most common arguments with links to different research.

In this post, rather than rehash his arguments, I'll go a different direction and will try

Despite a lingering argument over whether Bitcoin is more or less important than its underlying tech, Consensus 2016 saw keynote addresses and panel discussions on applications for blockchain or distributed ledger technology in cross-border payments, smart contracts, government, security, identity, the Internet of Things, and all different kinds of clearing and settlement.

If you want your god to be different, all you need to do is formulate a rational argument and provide some evidence in support.

The idea of an «absolute antidote» suggests a different concept of the human than is presumed in Hitchens's argument: a being capable of enslavement by his darker side, one whose infinite desire for something beyond himself can be short - circuited into various «false infinities» (Ratzinger), who can redeem himself only by restoring the circuitry of his absolute relationship with his Generator.

The analysis of these texts will be much shorter than the analysis of the flood in Genesis 6 — 8 because explaining all the texts in detail would simply mean that many of the same arguments and ideas presented as an explanation for one text would simply be repeated in an explanation for a different text.

Sometimes these sources point in different directions — as when a right not recognized in the past becomes widely understood as fundamental — and a court has to make a judgment between the two lines of argument.

His argument seems to hinge on the idea that capital punishment is so extreme and so different from all other punishments that it necessarily falls in the category of «high justice»» an attempt to «balance the cosmic books»» an authority which the state can not rightly wield.

Two completely different — and logically incompatible — arguments in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried have figured in the synodal process that led up to Amoris Laetitia.

What ties together Shenk's different arguments is what I call the divine inversion — the many ways in which God acts contrary not merely to physical nature, but to what humans take to be the natural order of things in the social and political world.

The argument rests on the belief that his Resurrection was not different in kind from what they may look forward to through trusting in him.

What new understanding is gained by listing the different steps in an argument?

The series, in effect, is an argument in favor of these stories, albeit on different grounds — scientific rather than religious or philosophical — though Bingham appears not to know this.

I'm late to the game so I apologize but I encountered the «go big or go home» argument in a little bit different setting a couple of weeks ago.

It seems to me that a lot of theological and philosophical arguments come from people trying to say the same thing in different words.

In recent years as I have gotten older I have started investigating all religions so as to understand the different arguments.

If one destroyed the Genesis story of creation and substituted the gradual emergence of different forms as they struggled for survival in their environment, then one destroyed the entire argument for the proof of God from the evidence of creation.

In a moment I shall give the arguments which led me at that time, as they have led many more competent Christian theologians both in the past and today, to talk in a different fashion of survival as a necessary ingredient in the total Christian faitIn a moment I shall give the arguments which led me at that time, as they have led many more competent Christian theologians both in the past and today, to talk in a different fashion of survival as a necessary ingredient in the total Christian faitin the past and today, to talk in a different fashion of survival as a necessary ingredient in the total Christian faitin a different fashion of survival as a necessary ingredient in the total Christian faitin the total Christian faith.

This is the ontological argument used in modern philosophy by Descartes and Leibnitz, though the consequences which Ibn Sina draws are different.

Conceived as we now conceive them, as so many fortunate escapes from almost limitless processes of destruction, the benevolent adaptations which we find in Nature suggest a deity very different from the one who figured in the earlier versions of the argument.

Against this latter argument there is one decisive factor: the fact that the «eyewitnesses» would have had to be quite different in interest and concern from any men whose influence we can trace in the synoptic tradition.

According to this account, in contrast to Ricardo's argument from comparative advantage, the more - developed and less - developed countries benefit from trade in quite different ways.

But that is beside the point — the whole argument to be made here is that Christianity and its messengers both try to differentiate themselves from the rest when, in truth, they really are no different.

In analysing such arguments, one must also note that in writers such as Cyprian, the access to the Hebrew scriptures were not only through the canonical text as such, but also, practically, through anthological collections of texts from these writings, which circulated in various forms, being used for diverse purposes in different communitieIn analysing such arguments, one must also note that in writers such as Cyprian, the access to the Hebrew scriptures were not only through the canonical text as such, but also, practically, through anthological collections of texts from these writings, which circulated in various forms, being used for diverse purposes in different communitiein writers such as Cyprian, the access to the Hebrew scriptures were not only through the canonical text as such, but also, practically, through anthological collections of texts from these writings, which circulated in various forms, being used for diverse purposes in different communitiein various forms, being used for diverse purposes in different communitiein different communities.

We have no idea that there might be other types of life in other parts of the universe or through a black hole into another universe that have very different narrow constrictions for environment that this argument says is prime for us.

It follows from this that to support the rightfulness of euthanasia with a number of essentially different arguments is to put oneself in the wrong from the outset by admitting indirectly that no single absolutely cogent argument exists.

But if our argument in this book is correct, the real situation is very different.

Despite their very obvious christian undertones, I though that the last book contained an argument against religion (more - so organized religion, which is a bit different), where the donkey and the monkey pretend to respectively be and be acting for Aslan (the Jesus symbol) and their actions result in widespread chaos, and the eventual collapse of Narnia.

As a Lutheran pastor, I supported women's ordination as part of a more general argument that God did not intend men and women to have different roles, and I found support for this position in Martin Luther's writings.

«8 He even echoed the argument that some of the Southern apologists used for very different purposes; namely that the slave is in some degree better off than the factory worker since he never faces the uncertainties of unemployment or the pangs of actual physical want that afflict the latter.

These contrasting positions are, of course, simply the echo of views that have contended with each other at different points in Christian history and have been a staple of argument over the last several decades within the academy.

It turns out, however, that these presumptions fit nicely with a wide array of different and perhaps even contradictory metaphysical schemes, and I doubt the arguments in the area of Hebrew philology change much if one is an ancient Platonist, a medieval Aristotelian, or a modern - day logical positivist.

We will not win people over by theological argument alone but by a different spirit in us than is in the world.

- the cultural relativity argument which assumes that «the Bible is an old book from a different culture, so we can't take it seriously in the modern world.»

This confusion is reflected in the sentence at the end of this argument, in which he says: «I conclude that, on process assumptions, it is unlikely that the world of nature is radically different than God intended it to be.»

The argument is cast in a somewhat different form, but it turns out to be a different route to the same destination.

I've heard more than a handful definitions or repentance and the content of saving faith and all make pretty strong arguments to someone like me who doesn't really know a whole lot (and even though I hold to faith alone in Christ alone there's even tons of different opinions on what that even means lol).

This argument was criticized by Thomas Aquinas but put forward in different forms by the great philosophers Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650), Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 77), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 - 1716) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 - 1831), although it was criticized by Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804).

He more explicitly takes up the arguments of liberals within the mainline church who suggest that conservative histrionics over the inclusion of homosexuals are no different from the resistance to racial or gender inclusiveness or to revision to the Book of Common Prayer (indeed, conservatives on the issue of homosexuality are in some regrettable company in recent history).

The one argument for Paulinho was that we brings something different to this team and IMO this was the game in which that could have been used.

His legacy as one of the NFL's greatest ever is unquestionable and, depending upon the value you place on Super Bowl rings in a sport with 22 different starting players per team, an argument could be made that Manning is the greatest.

If you want to make an argument that Corey Nelson (or Nate Gerry or a rookie) will come in a bring everything Kendricks did - then that's a different argument.