Sentences with phrase «more arguments with»

They also found that eighth and ninth graders who played violent games more frequently displayed greater «hostile attribution bias» (being vigilant for enemies) and got into more arguments with teachers.

The most - tired parents reported feeling more distance from their spouse (47 percent) and had more arguments with their partner over time, as their baby grew.

Not exact matches

The business community's continued failure to increase female representation at board and executive level has drawn fresh arguments for mandatory quotas and more flexible working conditions, with the

The Raging Bull argument highlighted growth drivers such as the energy sector's expansion, US manufacturing competitiveness, the explosive penetration of IT mobility and a housing rebound, combined with some positive demographic shifts for baby boom echo savers and more fiscally responsible behavior out of politicians.»

However, the court can not ignore the common - sense appeal of the plaintiff's argument; a literal reading of the statute undoubtedly accords more closely with their position.

While organized labor contends that a union workforce is a quality workforce, that argument, more often than not, doesn't resonate with business.

The essence of Chamorro - Premuzic's argument is that, a few very technical situations aside (and if you're involved in those, insufficient IQ probably isn't a major concern of yours), more real - world problems get solved with people skills than raw intelligence.

Klepper said he noticed while covering Trump rallies that the information, language, and arguments that people were making had less in common with Fox News and more in common with Breitbart News and even the conspiracy - peddling Infowars.

If you can counter those jaded ideas with irrefutable arguments based in history and fact, that could go a long way in helping to further a more sensible dialogue and finding solutions to racial disparities that remain deeply entrenched.

While organized labor contends that a union workforce is a quality workforce, that argument, more often than not, does not resonate with business.

The realtors» argument reached its absurd extreme last year, with an advertising campaign suggesting homeowners will be at risk of break - ins and assaults if their personal information became more readily available online.

The more pleasant the weather, the easier it was to get the students to agree with faulty arguments.

With national security driving the debate, Democrats see a more powerful argument than simply advocating the need to curb gun violence in a country of 320 million that has more than 310 million weapons.

We examine the confusion over whether the Florida school shooter was a white supremacist, the argument for being friends with racists and more.

So your argument is that because interest rates have been kept artificially low (effectively ripping everyone off with a manipulated money supply that's becoming more worthless by the day) that paying 6 % for a mortgage (which at one point was low) is getting ripped off?

I heard this line of argument in 2011, 2012, 2013 — and it's still being made, with investing sages telling people to sell stock and hold more cash.

Gianaris didn't agree with the argument that it's more effective to engage with the current administration.

It might benefit investors to consider these arguments more closely, and with greater focus on a century of economic evidence than on the verbal arguments of enthusiastic talking heads.

Asked which province — B.C., which wants to delay the project for environmental reasons, or Alberta, which wants to avoid delays for economic reasons — is making the more compelling argument, Canadians are evenly split, with 50 per cent saying each province's government is more persuasive

Past CPC voters again overwhelmingly side with Alberta and against B.C., while past Liberals are divided and past New Democrats find British Columbia's argument more persuasive.

Although the Chief Justice acknowledged that this argument had some merit, the more determinative factor — and the key difference between the statutory immunity provisions relied upon by the ERCB and Alberta Environment — was that the immunity clause with respect to the former explicitly contemplated the regulator as an entity («the Board or a member of the Board...») whereas the immunity provisions under the Water Act and the EPEA did not (referring only to «persons» in various capacities; see paras 62 — 71).

Neal and Taylor's argument was rooted in math: there were more consumers than there were IT users, which meant that over the long run the rate of improvement in consumer technologies would exceed that of enterprise - focused ones; IT departments needed to grapple with increased demand from their users to use the same technology they used at home.

Though one of American's core arguments for the merger was that the company needed to grow to compete more aggressively with Delta and United, the chief executives of those companies came out in support of the deal and further industry consolidation.

In this week's roundup: lots of confusion over whether the Florida school shooter was a white supremacist, the argument for being friends with racists and more.

And if both motions are denied, then this lawsuit will proceed, with more oral arguments scheduled.

The final argument in favour of a dual - class structure that we feel is worth mentioning will resonate more with a retail investor and it is simply that investors don't vote their shares in an «active» manner.

For some, this might be an argument in favor of going online, however, there are sometimes situations when speaking with an actual person is more helpful than trying to get your home loan over the Internet.

Out of an abundance of charity to Professor Leach, and with all due respect to his unimpeachable contributions as Chair of the Alberta Climate Leadership Panel, his argument may well rest on a more nuanced political assumption: that Alberta's leadership is required to bring the rest of the provinces along.

His more nuanced argument posits that should there be meaningful differences between segments but then all should be targeted, albeit with different, appropriate positioning.

The answer is simple, they aren't — it is the white, more Aryan featured Jews in this country who have labeled themselves as «Neocons» who have merged with the 15 % Ethnic German Majority in this country to lead the Genocide against the Iraqi people in the name of land (Palestine), Oil, and ostensibly protecting the Holy land of Israel (this last one is where the Neocon Jews really did some great salesmanship in selling this argument to the dumb Christian Americans who said, Yep!

Once you are there the arguments about comparison with other sins, ones Christians are more comfortable and therefore tolerate if not enjoy, is inevitable.

I find it funny that the Christian position, when met with any logical argument to discount the greatness of the Bible, can only cite more passages from the same book, as opposed to countering with a equally logical counter position.

With more than a hint of exasperation, Scalia concludes: «One will search in vain the document we are supposed to be construing for text that provides the basis for the argument over these distinctions; and will find in our society's tradition regarding abortion no hint that the distinctions are constitutionally relevant, much less any indication how a constitutional argument about them ought to be resolved.

The most disingenuous aspect of creationism is that is alleges evidentiary problems with evolution (generally, nothing more than arguments of incredulity based in arguments of ignorance), but then invariably requires invocation of magic to patch up their «legitimate alternative.»

Chudacoff, who throughout his book tends to introduce the theme of homosexuality with hints and surmises rather than data, counters Stott's argument with this: «More recently [actually less recently — in 1985 and 1988] other historians have discovered hints [of homosexual relations].»

Every debate Craig has had with an atheist «philosopher» or «thinker» has looked more like a learned professor trying mightily to explain basic arguments to a freshman with ADD... you know, the kind the sits in the back and only raises their hand to drop a line they remember from last night's Jon Stewart show?

The argument will be more accessible to readers with a measure of familiarity with the pertinent philosophical and scientific questions.

Of course they may end up disagreeing with Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine, and Barth about the moral significance of our being created male and female, but shouldn't they be a little less sanguine about it and a little more deferential, to the point of saying, «We believe the tradition made a grave mistake in its disallowance of gay partnerships, but at the same time we acknowledge our deep indebtedness to that tradition for giving us the theological and ethical vision to even make our argument for inclusion»?

Your argument, which is a common one among believers, is nothing more than a desperate attempt to avoid admitting something consistent with all the evidence because you just don't want to believe it.

The difficulty with arguing that gambling interests produce more social havoc than benefits is that it is an argument about happiness.

@Vic: For the sake of argument, let's suppose the universe was created by an all powerful being who had existed for an eternity extending into the past in emptiness of the nothingness that was before he got bored and created the universe with its 170 billion or more galaxies and trillion trillion stars.

As atheist writer Douglas Murray recently noted, after sitting alongside Dawkins in a debate: «The more I listened to Dawkins and his colleagues, the more the nature of what has gone wrong with their argument seemed clear.

One may, however, find insights in the Bible that provide public arguments against the idea and show that thinking more continuous with Christian teaching is better.

The only argument that makes sense for Christians is to claim that God, working with believing players to give them the courage to be better ones on both sides of every game, ultimately makes the game a better one, and more entertaining.

Even with WWI, or even more so with Iraq I, where stronger cases can be for the importance of U.S. economic motivation, it becomes very hard to distinguish the «we must not let Germany control Europe» or «Iraq control the Gulf» - type argument made on geostrategic grounds, from the same argument made on economic grounds.

The same argument applies to the life and medical insurance premiums people pay because there is no cheaper, more efficient public program for dealing with the costs of medical care and old - age security.

While they are more fun than many other arguments for the immateriality of the mind, they are ultimately not very persuasive because they conflate the world of the intellect with the natural world or, as Aquinas would say, intentional existence with natural existence.

While conceivability arguments are popular with those wishing to defend the honour of the soul, there are other more credible arguments for the immateriality of the intellect: less fun for sure, but more robust.

It's the lying and deception that can destroy trust in these situations more than almost anything else, and the second episode even makes it a point to try and get that across through slapstick humor, until it ditches that initial argument altogether and starts becoming a wacky comedy in full with all of the usual trappings.

Not to mention, this entire post is one long and contra - biblical argument that you / we shouldn't argue about theology, without ever setting forth clear and logical propositions that NOT arguing (again, fill in whatever verb you're more comfortable with, the result is the same) theology honors God more than standing in the gap and defending the truth he has set forth once and for all.