Sentences with phrase «little arguments like»

When I was younger, I'd get really hung up on little arguments like we had last night.

Not exact matches

The most common and strongest argument against PPC is the ROI argument, which goes like this: SEO costs little; PPC costs a lot.

The problems with arguments like this today is that they bear little resemblance to Pascal's wager as we can find it in Pensees.

Whenever in the course of his investigation of the historical Jesus Meier encounters arguments for which little evidence is offered, he likes to say that «what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.»

Looked liked Hughton had a little argument with Klopp at the end of the game, I wonder what that was all about?

your poor arguments let you down buddy, and believe me i like to discuss with you even though you» r a little bit violent and insulting at times....

I think the sign off from CRA above says it all... Just like when you read a voter ballot on propositions, I go straight to the source of who is behind the voice, and CRA consistently has used this «trace» argument time and again, just like the chem companies do with the lead in lipstick (I just attended the Teens Turning Green national summit, and found the debriefing almost verbatim to the CRA «counterpoint» above... it's only a «little» lead, not enough to... blahdeblah, times «x» amounts of applications per day times «x» amounts of other products with «trace» amounts, ad infinitum...)

But at the rate Levy is going, every little bit counts, and flipping an outspoken chair like DeProspo would help fuel the momentum - building argument that Levy's campaign has been trying to make.

I particularly liked Stuart's observation that contemporary politics is keen on the «choice» side of luck egalitarian argument but tends to little or nothing about the correction of brute luck.

This sounds a little like the much - debated argument that scientific thought advances through the acceptance of successive paradigms.

However, if one downweights these two events (either by eliminating or, as in Cane et al» 97, using a «robust» trend), then an argument can be made for a long - term pattern which is in some respects more «La Nina» - like, i.e. little warming in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific, and far more warming in the western equatorial Pacific and Indian oceans, associated with a strengthening, not weakening, of the negative equatorial Pacific zonal SST gradient.

I was always a little skeptical of that idea as an argument for Iodine but it looks like it's quite legitimate!

A little consideration like this will go a good way to making certain that the whole thing runs easily and there are no needless arguments.

Yes, a legitimate argument that can be made that she forms some connections with other tributes during the games, notably her fellow tribute Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and the little girl during the first games, but it seems like those moments are few and far between.

I don't see the point in discussing criticism, which is entirely subjective, and then couching a subjective statement like «Little Fockers isn't a better film than Killing Them Softly» in an objective manner to support what is essentially a subjective argument masquerading as an objective argument.

So for me, the argument scene between Stephen Strange and Christine Palmer, that fight scene in the apartment — even to this day, every time I watch the movie, it feels like, «How did I get this scene from this gritty little indie film into this Marvel movie?»

Autodefensa has elements of a populist uprising, and the grisly sights of such things as heads of decapitated victims lined up like ducks in a shooting gallery or a woman's story about the barbarous murder of a little child can not help but win sympathy for their argument for self - defense — especially when the Mexican government is, at best, ineffective when it comes to protecting its citizens.

But whether she's working closely with her editors or she's leaving them little choice in how to cut her films because of how lean her scripts and footage are, this kind of short, snappy, collage - like approach to storytelling has become Gerwig's «style» — which undercuts the argument that there's nothing distinctive about the way her movies look and feel.

Of course, just who those characters are depends on your view of the argument, and while it may seem like Affleck is clear on his beliefs by the film's conclusion, a final scene suggests that the argument may be a little more complicated.

Well, I've been making the argument for a while now that there is remarkably little evidence linking near - term changes in test scores to changes in later life outcomes for students, like graduating high school, enrolling in college, completing college, and earnings.

Most critics of portfolio assessment say they like the emphasis on demonstrated writing and oral skill, but have seen too many instances in which a refusal to give traditional tests of factual recall leads to charmingly written essays with little concrete information to support their arguments.

They always end up sounding a little bit like the «communism has never been tried» argument.

Her arguments were mostly unconcerned with evidence — there was little at the time, since reforms like vouchers were largely untried.

I think the «professionals» that do the test drives are so diluted with the massive range of cars trucks SUV's etc that they drive they loose the ability to fine tune what matters to the specific group of people into this type of car... Also there is a lot of room in the front seat - seems to have endless adjustment to it - I am a huge guy 6» 3 and 250 pounds and just to feel like the Santa fe I have to have the seat upwards, I will slowly adjust this back as I get used to the car... Also no one wants to discuss the arguments about the 19 inch wheels adding a little to the ground clearance - an engineer showed me this huge equation that in the end said it added 1.45 inches... who knows... But I am impressed with the power, I thought it was slightly bigger and more powerful that the CX - 5 and handled just as good maybe better off regular roads....

Adan — I like Andrew's post, though I get a little flinchy when arguments are boiled down to superlatives to advance the thesis (for example, I think few authors who have really studied the situation think of Amazon as a white knight riding in to save indie writers» bacon.

In addition to writing for young adults, M. T. Anderson also writes for younger readers, including two picture books illustrated by the award - winning Kevin Hawkes: Handel, Who Knew What He Liked, a biography of eighteenth - century composer George Frideric Handel, which was a Boston Globe - Horn Book Honor Winner, and Me, All Alone, At The End Of The World, which Newsday called «a persuasive argument for a little solitude and space to think.»

I like Suze's arguments, although when I see a situation that involves hedging risk, I prefer to spread my bets a little.

The argument goes something like, «The Little Book and the free website have made it so easy to find good, cheap stocks that there's nothing left.»

Behind this anger aimed towards publishers and developers, when boiled down to their base arguments, is the fact that customers / gamers don't like to feel as if they're little more than a cash flow into a company's bottom line.

In my humble opinion, great games should be played by as many people as possible and I have very little time for any tribalism over systems / brands; if that's what you are after reader, please stop now and report to a meta - news site where some tiresome internet argument going on about «Why PS4 is like totes better than Xbox one» or «Ps4 Epic fail» is surely going on right now.

However, if one downweights these two events (either by eliminating or, as in Cane et al» 97, using a «robust» trend), then an argument can be made for a long - term pattern which is in some respects more «La Nina» - like, i.e. little warming in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific, and far more warming in the western equatorial Pacific and Indian oceans, associated with a strengthening, not weakening, of the negative equatorial Pacific zonal SST gradient.

My hope is that the interactions here will be a little bit like the scientific process, whittling away at unsupported arguments, building on areas of agreement and creating a trajectory toward understanding and meaningful action.

Thus it seems to make little difference in this case if people are convinced out of trust / deference to a Milgrim - like authority figure, or because they understand the physical arguments.

But just like many of the arguments from professional climate science denialists, what at first might appear a cinematic coup d'état turns out to be little more than fakery and stage management.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

Scott says: June 23, 2010 at 7:22 am Søren Rosdahl Jensen says: June 23, 2010 at 1:46 am... Additionally, this argument holds very little weight because you're treating it like an isolated case.

And even if it is an «argument from authority,» if by «authority» you mean «expert,» I see little problem with it, particularly when someone like yourself is clearly not informed but has a hammer - headed opinion anyway — you honestly don't see that in yourself?

Much of the case advanced by opponents of the climate - change law like the so - called Association of Irritated Residents, the West County Toxics Coalition and the Society for Positive Action, consisted of arguments that the California Air Resources Board demanded too little of the polluters, not too much.

It seemed like a lot of hype, and darn little in the way of good arguments.

My darlings can we have an argument a little more convincing than «Michael Mann can be very rude, he's bald and I don't like proxies but I do love the,... cough..., 1965 proxy based MWP».

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

In a purely semantic sense you are right, so I would like to tighten my argument a little.

But COP23 largely ends in a quandary, with the developed and developing nations in an argument as old as the Kyoto Protocol, as they continue to squabble like shipwrecked passengers in a sinking lifeboat over who should bail and how much — even as the little boat rapidly takes on water.

Nevertheless, I would like to make one more argument for the little things.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutor - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

There's a thoughtful argument that while law students are taught about essentials like the elements of a tort, the rule against perpetuities, and so forth, they graduate with little knowledge about how to file a motion with the court, how to draft a trial brief, or how to deal with opposing counsel.

There are lots of theories around as to why, pictorially at least, we're unhappy with the perfection of the present, ranging from the view that our notion of authenticity is slow in catching up with technology, and still uses paper as the touchstone, to the argument that young people who use smart phones and these «aging» apps, in the words of Will Self, «have so little by way of personal history that they polish it up and make it shine like a treasured heirloom.»

The best argument for it is aesthetic: it's the trackpad that elevates the Vive controller design from fancy Wii Remote to something truly futuristic; each pad a beautiful little circle that looks like a cyberpunk data chip or a pan of expensive eyeshadow.

For example, cohabiting couples more strongly endorsed items like «Little arguments escalate into ugly fights with accusations, criticisms, name - calling, or bringing up past hurts.»