Sentences with phrase «least argue your point»

Please at least argue your point with some common sense instead of just reacting to feelings.

Not exact matches

I suspect it is» it would seem impertinent, to say the least, to argue with the founding fathers on the point» but I do want to complicate the argument just a bit.

One might be tempted to argue at this point that we have discerned the transforming influence of the cosmology of «emergent evolution» at least on Whitehead's thinking.

(or at least for the sake of this point being argued, the validity of the claims about homosexuality?)

My mom told me years later that she would plead with my dad privately to at least eat some of them so that I couldn't argue my point, but he protested that he hated them too.

In one particular comment I argued about the dangers of losing even a single match to a «Lucky 13» team, my theory was that you needed to compensate with 2 wins or at least four points from the Top 6.

And there is a whole other side that one could argue at some point catering to every single cry can also be harmful later in life (at least when the baby gets older).

Doubtless Labour, whose support fell by five points, will argue that it had its own particular local difficulties in Copeland — the party's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, used at least to be antipathetic to the nuclear power industry, on which the constituency is heavily dependent.

But what the No campaign has shown us, I believe, is that arguing for one's case with vigour and conviction, as David Cameron, George Osborne, Sayeeda Warsi and the Conservative machine as a whole (at least for the final couple of months of the campaign) has done - serving as able understudies to Matthew Elliot's splendid overarching campaign, which magnificently secured a majority of Labour MPs (underlining the point that most of Labour are our opponents, not our enemy)- can shift opinion.

Roy Spencer, best known for his satellite work arguing against warming of the atmosphere (which turns out to have been an artifact of a combination of algebraic and sign errors), criticizes Gore for pointing out that recent warmth appears to be anomalous in at least the past 1000 years.

I really don't give a flying f*ck if you read my posts or not, but do try and at least muster the energy to read up on the point you're so eloquently arguing before arguing it.

Digital royalties have been one of the major sticking points in the debate over traditional vs. self - publishing, with many people (even from the traditional publishing world) arguing that big publishers should raise digital royalties on ebooks to at least 50 percent.

The presentation is so minimalist in its appearance to a point that you could argue if it has any to begin with as you are immediately thrust into the game as there are no menus or options and all of the control schemes are located in the separate manual, while the lack of a pause menu is quite strange and unorthodox to say the least, although the presentation is somewhat redeemed by the use of clear and concise diagrams showing how to perform certain actions when new gameplay elements are introduced and some may say that with exception of the pause menu; the lack of menus perhaps helps the pacing of the game.

My own reason for arguing any point on Climate Etc. is not to persuade the skeptics, who have persuaded me that they are beyond persuasion, but merely to put my own views on record in a setting where there are sufficiently strongly held opposing views as to show that my view is at least not vacuously true but requires more thought in order to accept it.

Better than to say they were dishonest (especially since they did point out the transformation), you at least understand what they did, have told the public in much clearer terms than they did, and can similarly use the Forster / Gregory 06 raw results to argue a different sensitivity range.

At this point and even if you disagree, do you at least see why I'm arguing that CO2 = CAGW Climate Science has operated according to an unscientific definition of «peer review» and has, therefore, conveyed the wrong idea of what real science is to anyone who, especially through no fault of their own, is ignorant of what real science does?

Academics have been writing about this since the 80s; user - centered system design was a concept that came out of the early 80s, and it's taken 25 years to get to a point where we can at least argue that we've made some progress.

As Justice Ferguson scathingly noted in a judgment where lawyers for both parties had failed to do adequate research for the case: «In my view, it is not acceptable for any counsel or articling student to come to court intending to argue a contentious point of law without first researching the point at least to the extent of looking up the issue in basic reference books... If the lack of preparation and research in this case were unique or unusual I would let it pass, however, unfortunately it is not.

At that point I won't need to argue that «legal code» is similar to «software code», since the two will have merged, at least to some extent.

I didn't believe that such radiation existed, but arguing the point was not the least expensive way to get them back to work.

It seems to me that most lawyers at least attempt to avoid arguing too many points in their opening but still end up advocating one way or another through argument.

In a Q&A, which is posted on the New York Fed's website, the economists question bitcoin's utility, arguing it will never be as easy to use as the current central bank - backed fiat money, pointing to a host of concerns — not the least of which surrounds trust.