Sentences with phrase «how arguments are made»

It's not clear what you've demonstrated here other than a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding about how arguments are made.

It's interesting to read how the argument was made that the regular provisions in the (former) Supreme Court Rules represent a «complete code» sufficient to protect against the muzzle - minded litigants of vested interests.

Not exact matches

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.

«Depending on how the targeting is happening, you can make potentially different sorts of arguments about whether or not Google or Facebook or LinkedIn is contributing to the development» of the ad, said Deirdre K. Mulligan, a faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.

(See The Curse of Microsoft Excel) I remember long arguments with clients in one of my first businesses, where we tracked customer satisfaction by making millions of phone calls each year to consumers at home to determine how satisfied they had been with a recent experience.

Still, there's a solid argument to be made that it's not what you learn, but how you learn.

Listen to this quote from Ann Florini, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution and ask yourself if it applies to your organization: «NGOs are a bunch of people whose currency of power is information and the ability to make arguments and persuade people to change how things are done... to have that kind of power you have to have access to information.»

You'd probably have to come up with a statistical model that estimates what the fluctuations should be given some basic assumptions on how people will buy to make a conclusive argument that there is something fishy here.

However, if Q3 results show that margin's declined and the sales push only helped the top line, how can one make an argument that Tesla will be profitable anytime in the near future?

How convenient, once again, that something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever can be explained away with an argument that can't be refuted.

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

And those that don't say that stuff instead opting to argue and dissect and article or argument for / about god doesn't show they make any positive claims to the existence of such a being, but instead to show how ridiculous and irrational somethings are.

If he now doesn't want to make the claim that mercy is essential to God, I don't see how he can make the argument that mercy should be the key to understanding the other attributes.

If as you say, «two wrongs [don't] make a right argument» then why not debate @Blarg's statement instead of inciting atheists condemnation of his / her arguments by indirectly making a blanket statement about how Atheist should be offended?

They knew how to make their case to a jury — by creating a framework for the jury through which they will be compelled to agree with the perspective and argument of the lawyer / theologian.

While making his argument, Balmer shows how neglected the story of religion in the middle colonies — New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania — has been.

he's saying nothing bad about h.omos.exuals, but i just showed you a passage where christians are told to kill g.ays - see how that makes his argument pretty ridiculous?

No doubt there have been and are many people who have come to America simply to transplant their existing culture onto new soil — in fact, you can make the argument that that was how America was founded in the first place.

How would any country in the mid east react if I and 30 Christians hoped in planes and took out 3000 people... (I am not Christian and would likely not ride in a plane with that many neurotic people, but for arguments sake... personally I think religion is the fastest road to hell, but that's another debate)... the answer is simple... Jihad... how do I make such a simple 1 word answer... Ayatollah in Iran... he has a Jihad panic button... Osama Bin Laden... he has one too... that dude in Iran that no one knows or cares how to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosqHow would any country in the mid east react if I and 30 Christians hoped in planes and took out 3000 people... (I am not Christian and would likely not ride in a plane with that many neurotic people, but for arguments sake... personally I think religion is the fastest road to hell, but that's another debate)... the answer is simple... Jihad... how do I make such a simple 1 word answer... Ayatollah in Iran... he has a Jihad panic button... Osama Bin Laden... he has one too... that dude in Iran that no one knows or cares how to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosqhow do I make such a simple 1 word answer... Ayatollah in Iran... he has a Jihad panic button... Osama Bin Laden... he has one too... that dude in Iran that no one knows or cares how to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosqhow to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosque.

Your causal chain garbage is proof you have no idea how to make an argument.

We can see how this might be true if we consider an argument about capital punishment made by Camus.

Nah:» * yawn * Yes, yes, because a substantive rebuttal showing (1) the fallacy being used, (2) why it's fallacious, and (3) demonstrating how and why that makes «Colin's» argument a failure is «stupid» and «ironic» while avoiding being «logical».

* yawn * Yes, yes, because a substantive rebuttal showing (1) the fallacy being used, (2) why it's fallacious, and (3) demonstrating how and why that makes «Colin's» argument a failure is «stupid» and «ironic» while avoiding being «logical».

TheCapitalist, «it is funny how you just contradicted an argument that many atheists make, which is to say that Jesus was just copycat myth derived off of «ancient gods» like Hercules.»

Third, and related to this, it is critical to understand exactly how Paul goes about making his argument.

One hates to make old arguments, but if this education teaches (as other sections of the report make clear that is must) the familiar doctrines about how very wrong it is to impose any kind of normative standard on the many forms that peoples» desires can take, on what basis does it exclude pornography or the sexualization of young girls as legitimate forms of the varied human sexual appetite?

Other commentaries brought out how the Pharisees probably had a bit of conundrum, because Jesus didn't actually grind any herbs or use any medicine and so the argument could have been made that he had not violated the Sabbath.

The query should include the elements of the cover letter described above as well as a description of how the argument will be made and links to and / or files of already published articles if available.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

It never stops surprising me how people are willing to twist the truth to make an argument that makes them «appear» correct.

If belief is actually linked to facts by something logically sound, how can the believer make the facts or the arguments from them go away?

The fact that you can't figure out how to write «psychiatrists» or even «shrinks», but have to use the pathetic «physic», which doesn't make any sense at all, is evidence that you're not bright enough to make a cogent argument against gay marriage.

If my argument has been made good, then just how much we know of the Jesus of history can be left to the early church historians as an open question.

I am always amazed how folks (especially non-believers) attempt to use scripture to make a false argument

For some people they can also make the argument based on their own Social Idealogical Interpretation of How «Marriage» should be re-defined in the United States where Polygamy is considered as their own interpretation of Marriage.

I can't see how believing a God does or does not exist makes a church better or worse, so I was trying to get away from an argument that can't be won.

How then are we making arguments now?

I was just thinking about her today, by chance, and her amazing reversion, because my mother read her Jesus books... And I was thinking, damn, it's such crap the way she talked about how she stopped being an atheist because of the historicity of Jesus, no rational person can make that argument, she walking on glass, then BOOM!

Again I have to ask how solid is a religious «truth» if the best argument you can make is to threaten the lives of those who criticize it, or to destroy their criticism so that it can not be heard, or seen?

In Chapter 1 I have attempted to summarize the main points of Berger's argument, showing how it provides a useful way of understanding the extent to which sacred and nonsacred realities alike are constructed collectively with symbols; I then suggest some features of religion in contemporary society that seem to make sense in these terms.

The first, Why We Must Talk about Impeaching Obama is the one about the mechanics, about why it isn't decisive that the Senate won't convict, and how to consider the various arguments, touching race, elections, Joe Biden, etc., that Prudence might make against such talk.

The bullpen, maybe the defense, maybe how the lineup is constructed, maybe the bench, whatever, pick your argument and make it the best you can.

Besides several teams who have questions surrounding one or possibly two players, there is no squad that has so many issues heading into the final week of the transfer window... even Monaco, who have lost numerous players from their starting 11 have less controversy swirling in and around their club and they have champion's league play to contend with this season... just think of how ridiculous this situation is especially considering that we have had the same manager for over 20 years... no team should be better organized than ours... if nothing else, that should be the one advantage this team holds over all others, yet the exact opposite has occurred... this fact is even more disturbing considering the main argument against removing Wenger from his managerial position was that there was no suitable replacement and that people feared some sort of perceived drop - off if a new manager was brought into the mix... based on what we've witnessed since the time of his contract renewal a monkey with a magic eight ball could have done an adequate job... I hate to make jokes, in light of our current dilemma, but this team is so screwed up if I don't laugh about it, the only plausible response is to either cry or do something incredibly destructive... just look around this squad and try to see what our delusional manager sees that allow him to make such positive statements about our current team

When Samuel commented on why it was wrong to sell Lucas Perez you brought up stats between Walcott and Perez and in that you proved using the stats why Walcott is better.If Wenger didn't have blond love for some of his players then why did he keep benching Perez when he was performing yet the average guys always got a look in the squad.So if there are stats which prove Walcott is better aren't there stats which also prove Perez is better?Think about that.You also said Perez is not as good as some of us make out.The funny thing is yesterday we had an argument on Giroud and I also tried to imply that Giroud is not as good as we make out and you opposed.You always kept bringing stats up to defend him.Do you know if Bendtner or Chamakh had scored 25 goals for Arsenal in any season they'd still have been regarded as average.You know why?Because quality has nothing to do with stats and is just a kind pf talent or state.It seems to me that you think you know it all.You also denied the fact that Wenger likes French players and that if Perez was French he wouldn't have been out in one season stating other players as examples.It seems to me that you deny things which are clear for everyone to see.If you think you know better than everyone go and teach Wenger how to win the trophy this season.

the reason you don't get the goalkeeper argument is because fans in general don't know how to assess keepers we think if he makes a few saves he great, but thats not how it works, its a specialist position, where the lay man fan can't really see the defeciecies, the fact that Bob Wilson Wengers ass wiper himself cast doubts speaks volumes.i don't think Wenger will do whats required for us to push on hes not capable of it, not ruthless enough.We all know Arteta, Flamini an Diaby should be gone, but will they be gone thats the question.If they are still in our squad next season then Wenger has failed us again like the last 10 years

I would make the argument that the first 3 - 4 years of a QB are the most important for development and their improvement then will determine not only how long they are on a team but can determine what there overall development will be.

So, if the argument is being made, that a low end NFL rookie linebacker has proved that he can play in the NFL, more so than a high end prospect, simply by getting snaps, how is that any different than with COWSER / CHUBB?

I unfortunately watched the match... and I'm still awe struck how the so - called «the analyzer» still makes excuses for Wenger and Arsenal with long boring and baseless arguments... when the writing is clearly on the wall.

That should have been the reason why both of them ended up here in a Women's Championship match, but instead, we got it because Mick Foley just decided that's how it was going to be, because a heel presented him with a logical argument (explaining that both Bayley and Sasha lost thanks to a double - pin in the number one contender's match) and that just makes him cranky.

So I guess I can understand both sides of this argument but what I hope for as a fan is that an agreement can be made and we can see just how far Nelson can go at Arsenal.