Sentences with phrase «if arguments»

The court ruled that the trial court had properly barred the arguments about the empty pool but, even if the arguments had been allowed, it would not have changed the result.

Counseling can be helpful if you are uncomfortable talking about your feelings, if your arguments often stem from communication problems or if you struggle to effectively communicate your needs and wants.

While couples will never see eye - to - eye on everything, if arguments are happening more frequently and causing significant distress in the relationship, it may be time to work with a counselor.

Every couple argues, but if your arguments escalate to name calling and shouting each other down, then you are in serious trouble.

If its arguments were good ones, they should be able to find such evidence in Australia since 2000, and in the UK since 2011.

On the one hand, a permissive stance toward new arguments by tribunals on appeal serves the interests of justice insofar as it ensures that a reviewing court is presented with the strongest arguments in favour of both sides... This remains true even if those arguments were not included in the tribunal's original reasons.

If the arguments of the Court of Appeal in Kirk are right, and they appear consistent with the speech of Lord Cooke taken as a whole, then lack of notice does not exclude liability for damage which has occurred, although it may effect considerations about the relief granted.

some argument can reasonably be made in favour of its consistency [with the Charter]-- even if all arguments in favour of consistency have a combined likelihood of success of 5 % or less...

If arguments about the science of climate change were actually about the science, then this result would make no sense.

If the arguments made by contrarian scientists and the majority of the world's population can be written off as a product of screwy psychology, then so too can those made by Marshall and his cronies — and everyone else for that matter.

If your arguments are strong enough to stand on their own, then why not leave this behavior behind, and let them?

If they [the hostile reviewers] make arguments which are invalid you show that they are invalid and go on if their arguments are valid you amend your theory.

If your arguments were not so ludicrous, I might feel sorry for you both.

@ DCC (23:02:01):» If your arguments were not so ludicrous, I might feel sorry for you both.

@Mike quoted DCC: «If your arguments were not so ludicrous, I might feel sorry for you both.

How can anybody reach an informed decision if the arguments are never presented properly and the case never open to scrutiny.

I have not the slightest problem to admit that I am wrong (if the arguments are good...).

[Response: Only if their arguments make them deserve to look stupid.

As in sciences, it is important to elucidate the situation, and see if the arguments stand up to being critically scrutinized.

if your arguments applied, then we would simply not have any free ps3 or vita games anymore at all.

If their arguments are only that electronic devices «distract passengers from listening to safety announcements» and that they can «become dangerous projectiles», you might as well ban any good old paper book — which they have never banned during takeoff or landing.

If your arguments about the influences that really matter were implemented surely it would be easier in smaller classes.

We're going to have better arguments about data if those arguments take place in the public school setting.

Pupils make notes on different types of cloning and then decide if the arguments are for and against.

Talkback could be sooo much more if arguments were made for one's opinions.

If the answer is almost every day with hardly any / if any arguments over the small stuff, then you're probably ready to spend a little more time together.

Surely this would be an easy task, if the arguments offered against his predictions are as weak as he claims — this is what his critics will continue to claim for as long as he remains in his «Ivory Tower».

Even if his arguments might have been refined, there is much in the book that needed to be said, and much that can be read with profit, especially about science education in Pakistan.

Even the experts find it almost impossible to be sure if some arguments are correct.

If arguments, with a negative tone, become a daily affair, then that is sure to spoil your relationship.

Most kids love them, although you might need set up a rotating schedule if arguments on who gets to sleep in the coveted top bunk become heated.

They can be frightened if your arguments are loud.

I can't ignore what someone presents as truth if their arguments rest on the foundations of what, to me, are untruths.

I also argue that Evangelicals are open to changing «dogma,» but not if the arguments heard are just a repeat of old failed arguments.

It is the heart that must change if arguments are to carry any weight.

But if my arguments for his early theory, and extending it, are correct, these doctrines are unnecessary.

However, if those arguments can be refuted, it will be shown that Hartshorne has not proven God's necessary existence.

What if his arguments were wrong?

When I wrote Blessed Rage for Order, I did state that even if the arguments for the public character of fundamental theology in that book were sound, those arguments could not determine the distinctive form of publicness proper to systematic theology or that proper to practical theology.

But if this argument goes over your head and you haven't been involved in link building previously, then the chances are you have nothing to worry about.

If that argument was ever valid, it no longer is.

(If that argument sounds familiar, take a walk down memory lane to AOL's $ 164 billion merger with Time Warner in 2000.

If this argument proves correct, then it could be rather ill - advised for the BoC to cut based upon stale data.

If the argument has any merit or sometimes simply if the investor is famous enough, the shares plunge as investors sell their shares or others sell the stock short.

For the defender of the emergency fund, if the argument has to do with risk mitigation we agree that an (almost) all equity portfolio like ours might too risky.

If this argument is correct, torture is an inherently base act and any «goods» that come of it are irrelevant.

Only if the argument to be disputed is rational, is evidence required to refute it.

Is «nt the point if the argument is correct or not?

I don't know if the argument was as prescient as Wolfson and many other policy experts claim, but who am I to argue?

but if the argument is that we should be kind to everyone UNLESS they give us a reason not to..