Sentences with phrase «just for argument»

Just for argument's sake and we don't do anything to prevent it.

Lets say anthropogenic CO2 and human life expectancy have risen together to levels unprecedented in history — just for argument's sake.

So just for argument's sake, we'll keep with that 15th through the 22nd.

Just for argument's sake, Ray, I wanted to help you figure out what your target withdrawal could be from your RRIF each year to draw it down to zero at age 90.

If, just for argument's sake, we assume the IRA contribution limit rises by $ 500 every fifth year, then someone starting today and contributing the max would hit the $ 1 million mark in roughly 36 years.

But if you're, you know just for argument -LSB-'s] sake, if you are 20 feet from the ship, but you're in the same, going exactly the same velocity as the ship, ordinarily well, you would be up the creek, so to speak; because with nothing to accelerate against you would just parallel the path of the ship until you run out of oxygen or starve to death, whatever.

The desert Southwest; it is a lot of area and it sounds like a huge amount of area, but actually there is a map in the article that shows five or six — if you divide it up just for argument sake — into five or six massive installations, they would fit very nicely in few different parts of the desert Southwest, where of course the solar radiation is highest all year long.

What would it mean to apply in our daily lives, just for argument, the kind of reductions called for in the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse - gas emissions?

Besides — just for argument sake; if there really is a heaven, I doubt any non-believer wants to go to heaven.

In Krisha it feels like a bunch of random people thrown into a house just for arguments sake and no background history on the various characters.

Minister: Well say it was natural just for arguments sake, wouldn't the natural slight warming also cause extreme reactions, sorry I mean slightly more extreme weather, or not as the case may be?

Not exact matches

The arguments for participating in such off - the - record briefings are fairly obvious, just as they were for technology titans like Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Apple CEO Tim Cook, who got roped into a tech summit with Trump at the Trump Tower last week.

An argument can be made that oil and gas companies are just reflecting the unfortunate situation they find themselves in, but that's not enough, and it's not what investors are asking for.

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.

Arguments range from corporate self - dealing to the just rewards for talent in a free - market system.

Or does it just support the Trump campaign's argument that the media and the establishment are out to get their candidate, and that he represents a fresh start for America?

But just as with Nintendo's 3DS handheld, it's also an argument for buying the card - based versions of games, leaving you free to fill the internal space with digital - only fare.

In his book «The All - or - Nothing Marriage,» Eli Finkel, a psychologist at Northwestern University and a professor at the Kellogg School of Management, made a similar argument: Modern spouses look to each other for friendship, sexual fulfillment, intellectual growth — not just financial stability, like they did in years past.

As the argument went, social networks and the internet in general have made it easier for extra-marital dalliances to happen, just as they've made it possible for people with oddball interests to connect and become friends.

«The argument is the types of things we're doing now with information technology just don't show up in GDP because a lot of what we do on the Internet is free,» or very nearly so, says Philip Cross, a former chief of economic analysis at Statistics Canada who wrote a paper on the slow - growth economy for the Fraser Institute think tank last year.

While I truly want to be with you on the hands - off - free - market argument, I just have to believe that these rules are in place for good reasons... like making sure your sweet Granny don't get fleeced by a huckster.

The slowdown in job growth and the absence of any significant wage pressure could strengthen the arguments of those who see little risk in keeping borrowing costs exceptionally low and waiting not just for more encouraging data but also for unruly markets to settle down.

The whole «Dow 36,000» argument was essentially based on the notion that all earnings could be paid out as dividends, earnings would still grow, and that investors would be willing to hold stocks for a long - term return of just 6 % annually.

@ Mr Optimistic — you just made the argument for taking the negative yield on linkers: «I am only a couple of years away from retirement and a burst of inflation would be ruinous.»

Just as the arguments for higher cost structures in other industries have been washed away by the internet tsunami (go ask retailers or content providers), so too will the arguments for premium pricing for institutional trades succumb to the inevitable erosion.

She has also been a strong voice for cooperation among progressive parties rather than for continued competition that mainly serves the interests of the Right (yes, yes, I know the argument that having many choices on your ballot is supposed to be a good thing, but the outcomes of Alberta elections suggest that in fact for progressives, it's just the opposite).

Is an increase from 2.6 % of GDP in 1981 to 3.1 % of GDP in 2012 unsustainable?  Yes, I suppose so, if this rate of increase continues for another few centuries. The same argument the CFIB makes for municipal spending could be made for corporate profits but far moreso. After adjusting for inflation, corporate profits have increased by 245 % since 1992, doubling as a share of GDP and growing at a rate of ten times Canadaâ $ ™ s cumulative population growth of just 23 % since 1992.

You might decide that this is just an arbitrary, round figure, that is only roughly right for you, and in fact there is just as good an argument for 15 % or 25 %.

I don't necessarily buy this, but for arguments sake let's just say that money flees at the first sign of trouble.

The usual arguments from the far right («we can not afford this,» they say, or «if you pay people for not working, people won't work») join with those on the far left («this is just a way to reduce pressures on the minimum wage or cut back all the other programmes that are vital») are mutually reinforcing, even though they're largely inaccurate.

@Chad «you sure need to address the compelling arguments that DO exist for the God Don't always just run and hide behind «we do nt know»

The conservative politician who can listen to members of the other political coalition like Reagan did, and who can learn to respond to the arguments of the other side (as opposed to just posturing for the amusement of their own side), won't just win over those who currently think of themselves as swing - voters.

This comment of yours is a great argument for why you should stop the whining and just grow up already.

That's right... you have no response for Just Say'In's argument.

Ok we muslims don't love one another and don't love anyone else, just for the sake of argument, can't you guys see the hate that is dripping from your mouths....

Your entire argument can be boiled down to «No, heaven should just be for people like me.»

Sorry folks, I just don't have time or patience for a more sophisticated argument... another shot... oh wait I thought of a perfect response to AvdBerg

So are you trying to make an intelligent argument for gay marriage advocacy or just trying to prove a billion and a half people wrong and anger them in the process?

My experience in being a team member and leading teams tells me that it just takes one loud voice to ruin an otherwise convivial gathering and that making things good for everyone requires satarising any pretentiousness and deconstructing any evil argument in order to render said loud voice powerless.

You said, «To discount The Bible as merely a «fairy tale», or deny the life of Jesus just doesn't cut it without ANY counter-evidence, so you make the convenient argument for yourself that there is no evidence to counter.

Look, the argument that anti-abortionists are stupid / irrational / inconsistent because they «do nt care» for the baby after birth and all of that is just a non sequitur.

And so goes the argument for so many wars, not just those with Israel.

Do your rallying where it does the most good and for God sake, make your arguments about more then «so and so wants us to be poor» and «so and so just wants to be rich».

5) That supernatural cause could not itself have a cause, because infinite causal chains do not exist — let's suppose for the sake of argument that the chain of causation has to stop somewhere; it is just as legitimate to suppose that it stops with the Universe, or that your supernatural being is not the final link in the chain

The narration of these events is meant to serve not just as an example but as an implicit argument for how Christians should think, and how seminary curriculum should be restructured to take congregational life seriously.

As most criminal actions are already illegal, I was just extending the crime into a specific criminal industry for the sake of argument.

Maybe because I'm just not equipped / have no heart for theological arguments but if a brother or sister are in Christ, that's enough.

Thus Martin concludes, for example, that N. T. Wright's approach to Jesus, which mixes supernaturalism and ordinary biography, is just as historically valid as Sanders's method, which does not deal with miracles or the resurrection — although, paradoxically Martin finds Wright's arguments about the resurrection very unconvincing.

For arguments sake, we'll say this guy was just a bad seed right from the start.

An ordinary reader might think that Martin's argument for openness to supernaturalism is intended to give aid to conservative Christians who reject secular scholarship because, they argue, the believing historian is just as justified in bringing her faith in supernatural intervention to life - of - Jesus research as the secular historian is in rejecting it.