Sentences with phrase «most argued point»

This is the most argued point of resume writing.

Not exact matches

With more than $ 1.2 billion backing it and Intel at its side, Cloudera claims the most widely adopted Hadoop technology in the world — although Hortonworks (which got $ 50 million from Hewlett - Packard (HPQ) over the summer) and MapR Technologies would probably argue the point.

But his bullishness is typical of how tech investors view Tesla: they argue that growth is all that matters and expect the company to at some point achieve a monopoly position in an industry that's among the world's most competitive.

Perhaps you could argue that the growth / profitability trade - off is not being made efficiently, but all signs point to Travis being the most effective business operators alive.

You raise a very good point that escapes most theists and that is while they argue against atheists for not believing in their god, they forget that most of those arguments could be applied to them by somebody of another religion.

My point, though, was that most Christians argue the bible is the inerrant word of God, which includes the Book of Revelation.

Romney has taken the time to inform himself about the issues to the point that he can argue both sides of any issue better than most of his Republican opponents can argue any side of anything.

Though many Calvinists argue that double predestination is the only logical conclusion to the Calvinist position on God's election of some (but not all) to receive eternal life, I am not going to belabor the point or try to refute the idea since most Calvinists claim that they do not teach or believe it... (for more on reprobation and double predestination I recommend this book: Vance: The Other Side of Calvinism, pp, 250 - 333).

D. E. Nineham points out that «most commentators accept at any rate the basic facts of the story, arguing that Christians would have been unlikely to invent a tradition in which Jesus receives hurried burial from a pious Jew, and his own followers have no part in the proceedings ’15 and then goes on to add that «scholarly opinion has perhaps been a little inclined to overlook the possible influence of the Old Testament on the story».16

I need only to ask: if you wash your feet before prayer, and when the last stoning was that you attended: to get my point across... but you did say I had to answer in a coherent manner...:) Yes, the jesus story... one of those that many love to argue about, even me at times in my life have i taken the position of «he never existed»... but most of us know he did, the only real question is his divinity.

Ironically, the passage in Colossians you gave (in vs. 13) is used to argue for Christus Victor, and the «through his blood,» in that verse isn't present in the most reliable ancient manuscripts... but that's besides the point.

The most famous advocate of this point of view is Leibniz, who argued that the only real substances are simple, unextended points, endowed with force.

The way you argue buttresses my point that most fans argue from points of ignorance rather than facts and knowledge.

There is no point in arguing whatsoever, Enjoy the season cause Man city have the best fixture run - in till December end and most of them are at home.

At this point, even the most dedicated of conspiracists will get bored of arguing with ineffable and uncaring forces, and be forced to move on with their lives.

I argued the point that a top striker is possibly the most important part of a team.

Point taken, but I'd argue that in any corner of the internet where these types of discussions are held quickly turn into some of the nastiest, most disingenuous arguments held in bad faith that you'll ever find online.

That's a huge revelation since most data analytics have argued that the three - point shot has been widely under - utilized.

And though one could argue that Algeria have been the most impressive African national team of the last couple of years, domestic critics point to a lack of star power as evidence that this team should not yet be considered elite.

At some point, most couples will argue over how to discipline their children.

Even here in whatever - city - USA, nothing a baby can or can not do makes sense except in light of the mother's body, a biological reality apparently dismissed by those that argue against any and all bedsharing and what they call cosleeping, but which likely explains why most crib - using parents at some point feel the need to bring their babies to bed with them — findings that our mother - baby sleep laboratory here at Notre Dame has helped document scientifically.

Admittedly, this point is not beyond dispute: most notably, Adam Tomkins has argued against this view, contending that the Scottish Parliament lacks this power, but, for reasons I have set out on this blog, I think it unlikely he is correct on this point.

So the pluralist challenge for Caroline Lucas is whether she is going to strongly back the Yes campaign, which is seen as positive by most - longstanding pro-PR voices across various campaigns or parties, or continue to argue after the next few weeks over the Bill that there is nothing much at stake, so that through to next May her primary point is that it doesn't really matter if its not PR.

While it's hard to argue against anything you wrote (i agree with most points), specific examples - especially of people citing those specific individual reasons - would improve this answer a lot.

De Blasio offered perhaps the most pointed criticism of the bunch, arguing that frustrations in the community stem from a lack of diversity in the top ranks of City Hall.

Addressing the parliamentary press gallery over lunch, Khan claimed that «most British Muslims have come across someone with extremist views at some point» and argued that British Muslims had a «special role» to play in tackling extremism.

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.

They called it a synestia, and argued that most planets and even some stars might form these oddities at some point in their lives.

He points out that the researchers didn't collect M. abscessus from the environment; patients in different countries may become infected with very similar bacteria because those are the most common in the environment worldwide, he argues.

Competition and comparison may have served us at one point in evolution, but today I'd argue it's at the root of most destruction — interpersonally, intrapersonally, and environmentally.

It might not be as rewatchable as some of his films (and watching it «forwards» as it were, is educational, but rather robs the film of its point), but it's a pretty astonishing leap up the ladder, and it could be argued that it's the director's most complete film to date.

We've argued this point before, but the first couple of decades of the video game saw the medium taking most of its cues from the movies.

Since most of the students using vouchers are black, it is, as State Education Superintendent John White pointed out to the New Orleans Times - Picayune, «a little ridiculous» to argue that the departure of mostly black students to voucher schools would make their home school systems less white.

Barbara Taylor, the secretary of the National Association of Small Schools who chairs the governors at a school with 49 pupils in south Oxfordshire, accepted that some underperforming small schools may have to close, but argued «most» perform well and are a «focal point of the community».

But, I've been in enough discussions about this around the web to know most people don't agree with me so there's not much point in still arguing the point.

So while his daytime hours are spent at a local liberal arts college teaching literature to entitled millennials who would rather spend more time arguing about the finer points of plagiarism than write yet another essay about Hamlet, Sam drowns his leisure hours playing Elfquest, an online role - playing game where his avatar is the coolest and most revered among his fellow gamers.

1: wide range of price points even for new releases argue against a one size fits all pricing 2: most prices start at lower then what used to be the norm ($ 49.99 or $ 59.99).

His point is that there is much inefficiency, that the market price is determined by the single most greedy or most depressed investor, and that academics continue to argue that the markets are efficient, while the super-investors of Graham - and - Doddsville continue to beat the indexes.

Most managers / traders played the game very sharply, and argued for every basis point.

As for point 3, you may as well argue with the sunrise, because most investors are trend - followers, whether they know it or not.

In this article, financial journalist Duncan Hood argues that paying a single percentage point more in fees can cost most portfolios tens of thousands of dollars in lost savings.

It may be possible to argue value of 1 cents per point as compared to MSRP on some items, but most in my research are discounted enough at retail that the real value comes nowhere close.

This could be cards like the Chase Sapphire Preferred ® Card (because Ultimate Rewards points are valuable) or the Starwood Preferred Guest ® Credit Card from American Express (because I'd argue a Starpoint is the single most valuable points currency per unit).

I suppose most people play consoles on their couch, possibly with a coffee table in front of them increasing the distance to their TV; however, that really doesn't seem to matter much when arguing the point because the difference is technically noticeable if you look CLOSE and people will claim they notice the difference from far away, even though I think that is wishful thinking unless * maybe * if they have 20/15 or better vision... I think that is more of a «FACT!»

eric this just proves your a feggit cus your arguing plus you try you need to be right by acting like an esshole lmfao ur so loser u new skewl feggit u have no brain and never will if people in the 90s did nt like sonic new sonic wouldnt exist u dumb fuck point proven and also proven ur the most retarded here u shit faced noob

I would argue that this portrait of a young Kellie Jones points to the extensive creative dialogues to come between this exhibition — the most significant and informed contribution to debates around black art to date — and a new generation of UK artists.

Cézanne and Still similarly dismantle Albertian perspective by giving equal emphasis to figure and ground... Although Still points out that one of Cezanne's «most important contributions to the evolution of modern art» was his ability «to realize form in color rather than make color look like form,» he does not argue that one of these plastic elements is subordinate to the other.

2) Michael Cricton uses real numbers and statistics to argue his points, which is a lot better than what you can say for most global warming sites.

If you can not follow the proof, then you do not have a basic understanding of one of the most basic equations in statistics, which means that you do not understand statistics, which means that you are as competent to argue a point of view on AGW as you are to advocate competing forms of cancer treatment without ever having had a course in biology.

I have met three or four reasonable men who are capable of arguing the point logically, most were well educated and of the old school of politeness and you Sir are not amongst them.