Sentences with phrase «first argument points»

Not exact matches

«I had to at some point get my sea legs as an entrepreneur,» said Webb, who added that the dispute over Sparkling Ginger was the first real argument in which she prevailed over Gurwitch.

The closest Harford gets to bullet points is coining three «Palchinsky principles» that underpin Adapt's argument: «First, seek out new ideas and try new things; second, when trying something new, do it on a scale where failure is survivable; third, seek out feedback and learn from your mistakes as you go along.»

The first argument against refinancing goes that it doesn't make sense to refinance unless you're lowering your mortgage rate by one percentage point or more.

More will be said in a moment about the implications of this situation, but first something more must be said about the argument to this point.

The first argument hangs on some very general points about relations.

My first point is that there already exists a carefully documented set of arguments which shows that within the Whiteheadian system it is impossible for there to be any relation of overlapping or inclusion among standpoints of actual occasions.

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.

Then again I guess you could make the argument that every rock on Earth is technically space rock at one point or another when we first formed so I guess I continually get my wish every second I take a step, but lets just say for arguments sake that rocks that didn't form on earth are pretty neat.

I shall address the first point here with reference to the second and then develop the second and third points in the course of the argument to follow.

First off, be the better man, and second, every argument point on every side is ridiculous!

Like the first two books treated here, these are not courtroom arguments that lead to a single irrefutable point.

The form of argument in this presentation has emphasized several specific points: first, that the Asian values argument, as a challenge to the implementation of constitutional democracy, is exaggerated and fails to account for the richness of values discourse in the East Asian region - local values do not provide a justification for harsh authoritarian practices; second, that the cultural prerequisites arguments fail because they ignore the discursive processes for value development and they are tautological, excessively deterministic and ignore the importance of human agency it, therefore, makes little sense to take an entry test for constitutional democracy; third, the difficulties of importing Western communitarian ideas into an East Asian authoritarian environment without adequate liberal constitutional safeguards; fourth, the positive role of constitutionalism in constructing empowering conversations in modern democratic development and as a venue for values discourse; fifth, the importance, especially in a cross-cultural context, of indigenization of constitutionalism through local institutional embodiment; and sixth, the value of extending research focused on the positive engendering or enabling function of constitutionalism to the developmental context in general and East Asia in particular.

No argument that Ramsey has improved, but they shouldn't have been aloud to cost us points week after week in our first team!

Recent research has concluded that television, computer games and video games are not necessarily harmful, but it is unlikely that a child under two will actually learn to talk sooner through that exposure (which was the point of the argument in the first place).

I think there's much that's good in your article but would like to ask some questions: first, you say at bullet point # 5, «This argument is wrong, because (a) important benefits obtain in marriage, which do not in civil partnerships».

So at this point, the Miner argument is familiar in political circles beyond the walls of her first - floor office, adorned with a Barack Obama coffee mug, pictures of Jack and Bobby Kennedy and SU football pioneer Ernie Davis.

So, depending on your point of view, that's either an argument for never deviating or for never being strict in the first place.

I checked out your link and while I agree with his argument, the first image of that muscle dude is a bit scary It's an interesting point about «resistance training» for spinal extensors; I am not sure how that would work considering the fact that when you begin your roll up all the posterior muscles are in stretched out position, which means that they can not contract effectively.

There's a decent argument for a point - and - click adventure called Uninvited (1986) being the first survival horror title, but many regard Capcom's Sweet Home (1989) as the first game in the genre that we'd recognise as «horror» today.

For example, Garrel casts his own father and son in his movies; in his lovely Summer Hours, Assayas traces the fortunes of a family at the point of dispersal; and Desplechin focuses relentlessly on family dynamics, from his first film, La vie des morts, up through The Sentinel, My Sex Life... or How I Got into an Argument (where the collegial circle becomes a second, substitute family), Esther Kahn, Kings and Queen, and now A Christmas Tale.

It is a little rough around the edges and there is an argument to be made that the relative lack of directorial flair makes the film feel too conventional but those points are only really relevant when comparing it to Argento's later works, and after all, this was his first movie and there are plenty of filmmakers out there at the twilight of their careers who would love to make a thriller as tight and effective as this with everything available at their disposal, let alone the small budget and restrictions that Dario Argento had to work with.

The first argument against its use relates to how it might be applied for accountability — that teachers should not be held fully accountable for any one test or data point, given the range of factors and measures involved in student learning.

The first incident was the result of a heated argument with another student that got Antonio worked up to the point he emotionally shut down.

At first, start the writing by choosing a right topic and after selecting a topic, you need to provide solid information to support your own point of views on this matter and be prepared for any argument that you may receive from the opposite side.

Persuasive essay outline should include the following points: introduction (with a clear thesis statement presenting your specific position), paragraph one (covering the first supporting argument), paragraph two (covering the second supporting argument), paragraph three (covering opposite opinion), paragraph five (refuting the opposite opinion), paragraph six (covering the third support argument), and conclusion.

Persuasive essay outline Persuasive essay outline should include the following points: introduction (with a clear thesis statement presenting your specific position), paragraph one (covering the first supporting argument), paragraph two (covering the second supporting argument), paragraph three (covering opposite opinion), paragraph five (refuting the opposite opinion), paragraph six (covering the third support argument), and conclusion.

However, you also point out one of the arguments for spaying before the first heat.

When I pressed Dr. Kay on the first point, asking what information «Dr. Doe» would have that trumps information provided by someone such as Dr. Schultz, she replied, «You will get no argument from me on this.

First off, in four years of tracking this card, I have never seen the bonus offer dip below 25,000 points, so the rep's argument is based on a false premise.

Geoff — I wasn't meaning to have a blow - by - blow argument on the documents, rather to make two points — the first that Thatcherism was not intended to weaken British industry — but it does depend on how you define weaken.

Probably the greatest argument for a carbon tax is the pressing need for taxation reform overall, coupled with the need for bipartisanship in tackling CO2 emissions and I'll address the latter point first although they're inextricably linked, the moment carbon taxing is mooted as a bipartisan option.

If an argument appears to be grossly askew according to basic, first principles of proportion, then a broader point of view seems justified to balance it.

To illustrate my point about the fragility of arguments based on short time series take a look at the graph (Fig 1) in Christy's evidence and drop out the first five years.

Newsweek Magazine first used the climate «tipping point» argument in 1975 to urge action to prevent man - made global cooling.

The first point alone justifies publication of a comment on Schmidt since the confusion about where the SAC correction needs to be applied goes to the heart of Schmidt's argument... [Emphasis added]

Anders is my homie and all, but I got ta say when if I imagine trying to read the paragraph without first reading this argument, I would have read it as referencing emissions from this point forward.

How exactly are you proving your point when you admit (emphasis mine)... «yes, the temperature moved FIRST» and you make hidden conciliatory statements like... «for the MAJORITY of that time» and then you freely admit... «CO2 did not trigger the warmings» and then you rely on the lamest of hollow arguments... «according to climate THEORY and model EXPERIMENTS» and then you stumble back to close with complete opinion and conjecture... «we may well» and «The likely candidates» Anyone with a brain will read your post and laugh - it's pathetic and you've actually done nothing but strengthen the skeptics argument.

Two points, first, your 50 % attribution argument in Curry and Webster (2011) is indeed «made - up».

Let's remember these as we look into the details of his argument to see his errors...» In this case, pointing to potential biases is an acceptable first argument before taking on issues with the opponent's arguments.

Delingpole was on first and gave a typical performance stuffed to the gills with strawman arguments and many «usual suspect» talking points that we have debunked beyond death here at Skeptical Science - «no warming since 1997», of course, plus a few throwaway comments about yoghourt - weavers and eco-loons, accompanied by much spirited heckling.

As more and more people have pointed out the heat accumulation in the deep ocean, a common argument in the denialosphere has been that the measurements are wrong, because how could heat accumulate in the deep ocean without first passing through the top layer and being detected via ARGO floats and the like (apparently they're also saying this heat was never noticed near the surface).

Knowing the people that I've tried to convince, that is the first thing they would point out as an argument that this warming is just a natural part of the earth's climate fluxuations, not anything anthropogenic

I suppose even the second point (on error bands) comes down to preference, but it's one where I don't accept your argument as readily as on the first point (that thermal inertia might as well be excluded).

The first was the Supreme Court decision in the Rangers Football Club case where, contrary to expectation, the HMRC's arguments over the «suspect» tax efficiency of an employee benefit trust prevailed sparking wide - ranging consequences for many other schemes — a point HMRC have been quick to advertise.

(5) Most if not all of the arguments in favour of ABS that lie outside those first four points are little more than clutching at straws by people incapable of resiling from a stance they have taken publically, not matter how increasing foolish the stance is (get rid of witnesses and affidavits for wills).

First, to categorise a failure to settle on particular terms as unreasonable conduct would open up wide questions with ramifications for other forms of litigation, and there had been no argument on the point.

The point was first raised in argument at first instance and was not, therefore, explicitly decided by the commissioner, but Justice Rothstein was satisfied that no prejudice resulted from considering it.

Two, I've bought into the idea that persuasive argument is, first and foremost, digestible argument: writing point - first, plain language argument in Helvetica... [more]

As he developed the argument, Judge Murphy rejected the first two points as being without substantial justification.

Again, that would be inconsistent with the argument by which HMRC had succeeded on the first point.