Sentences with phrase «interests on both sides of the argument»

Not exact matches

The proper argument is not an abstract debate over the size of government but a debate over how much government we want and need, whose side government is on and what interests government serves.

But what I detect in it is the work of someone who was never all that interested in investigating the arguments on either side of the same - sex marriage debate; whose scant interest in it has now been fully exhausted, both intellectually and morally; and whose present conclusions hover in mid-air without anything to support them other than a wistful regret that he has lost a hoedown partner in a gay man who has come fairly unglued over the issue.

You can't be seriously suggesting that there are «interesting and challenging questions» on both sides of this «argument!

Regardless of what side of the argument you are on, there is some very interesting questions to ask regarding this topic and there is still much to learn in the future.

Argumentative research paper is interesting to write because you have a freedom to choose the side of the argument and defend your position using the available literature on the topic.

There's a lot of reading comprehension fail (for example, in this particular case, the illogical inference that noting a problem with Amazon's position a priori means one is on the «side» of Hachette, especially when I've taken pains to note both companies work for their interest, not mine), and it's not my job to wander about the field, gently teaching people how to parse arguments.

Note: For an interesting piece that takes the other side of the argument, check out Steven Towns» bullish piece on Japanese equities.

The Federal Court agreed with the Minister's argument that there was no common interest between Abacus and Gillis because they were on opposite sides of a transaction.

Emphasising that this is a «very important constitutional case», in which there were «vital public interests at stake on each side of the argument», the court formed the «clear view» that it should not «do anything which would have the effect of immediately disapplying Part 4 of the 2016 Act», with the «resultant chaos and damage to the public interest which that would undoubtedly cause» (§ 46).

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 reasonOn 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 reasonon 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.

It is apparent there are competing arguments and interests on both sides of the issue which will be elaborated upon as the appeal progresses.