Sentences with phrase «much argument for»

It's simply an opinion, and there isn't really much argument for either side.

Abnormal Returns (McGraw Hill, 2012) is not so much an argument for a specific strategy as a catalogue of wisdom.

Not exact matches

As much as it's significant to speak for yourself and stand by your point, it's also necessary to avoid pointless arguments at work.

That Monday's accident was the first fatal incident involving a fully autonomous vehicle indicates that arguments for their safety have merit, but much of that testing has occurred on highways, which are easier for self - driving cars to navigate than dense, urban environments.

Much of the technical evidence in the case has been filed under seal, making it impossible for outside observers to independently assess the strength of each side's arguments.

For starters, you can use it as a way to list the pros and cons of each side of an argument, much in the same way that ProCon.org does for major and controversial political issues (see my example beloFor starters, you can use it as a way to list the pros and cons of each side of an argument, much in the same way that ProCon.org does for major and controversial political issues (see my example belofor major and controversial political issues (see my example below).

The sources of Trump's political support have been much debated, but his argument that trade deals were a «very bad deal» for Americans was compelling to a swath of voters across the political spectrum.

On the other side of this argument are those who believe that the massive amount of debt is too great for central bankers to overcome, no matter how much money they can create.

I eat so much A&W I could make the same argument for buying them as you made for buying utilities.

There isn't much of an argument for adding even more.

But I think too much water has passed under that bridge for that argument to be effective.»

Much of your argument such as I've seen, for your sky fairy (and I really think that is an appropriate term for your obviously fictional deity with all the self - contradictory tales about it in the bible), really seems to consist of a combination of willed ignorance and arguments from ignorance.

So much for THAT argument.

This position is much derided, but more for the conclusions it reaches than the argument it makes.

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.

Without any evidence for, or even so much as a rational argument in support of your god, or any other god for that matter, believing they exist is patently moronic.

This is much like the argument for the Christian Trinity, it is true because god says so in the bible and the bible is true because god says so.

a much better argument for converting folks.

The analysis of these texts will be much shorter than the analysis of the flood in Genesis 6 — 8 because explaining all the texts in detail would simply mean that many of the same arguments and ideas presented as an explanation for one text would simply be repeated in an explanation for a different text.

Add to that the variety of doctrines / Theologies within orthodox Christianity... with Consensus on a very small Core of Truths: God Is, We are not God, Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Salvation is Through Faith / Belief in Him... there is much that lacks Consensus and there are mountains of arguments and counter-arguments for each doctrinal / Theological position.

For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.

My argument wouldn't be that I am offended so much... but that the oath becomes meaningless when it must be attached to bearded father figure sky god that will punish me for breaking the oath.

In other words, Griffin's argument is that process theology presents a much more plausible explanation for natural evil than can classical theism.

I may have preached words similar (but much better and with decent argument) for the christian church for several decades..

It's too much to reiterate in the limited space we have left, so I urge you to pick up God and the Gay Christian for the full argument.

I appreciate that Julie has acknowledged some of that, but think that — as someone that stands outside the inner circle — your argument may hold much for you than for those in the inner circle.

Indeed, the Common Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, sets forth in both the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles arguments in support of the death penalty that are subtle and leave much room for the exercise of prudence by lawmakers.

So much for Gopnik's argument that Chesterton's «national spirit» and «extreme localism» led him to his supposed anti-Semitism: they were, in fact, precisely what gave him his respect for other nations and other cultures, including that of the Jews, to which the world owed its knowledge of God, «as narrow as the universe».

Though this schema remains, in much reduced form, in the present volume, Hopewell found the central image, the body, unsatisfactory as a conveyance for his essentially structuralist arguments about congregational narrative.

Chesterton's Autobiography is not always a reliable source; but there is corroborating evidence for these protective feelings from his childhood onwards: and since this evidence is virtually unknown, it is probably best here to take this opportunity to publish it for the first time (much of it will appear in my forthcoming book Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy, though I discovered some of it too late for it to be included) rather than repeat old arguments.

My question was aimed for the majority of peope that also disagree with you as much as me and cling to their faith so violently that if someone even broaches the subject, they immediatly lash out and try to either convert the unbeliever, condem him, or bring up the inane, breathtakingly stupid argument of «I can't prove there is a god, but you can't prove there isn't so we're at an impass» — I think that argument is probably the most frustrating thing EVER

Readers» comments on the piece included much criticism, too (although there was plenty of support for Helminiak's argument).

How would any country in the mid east react if I and 30 Christians hoped in planes and took out 3000 people... (I am not Christian and would likely not ride in a plane with that many neurotic people, but for arguments sake... personally I think religion is the fastest road to hell, but that's another debate)... the answer is simple... Jihad... how do I make such a simple 1 word answer... Ayatollah in Iran... he has a Jihad panic button... Osama Bin Laden... he has one too... that dude in Iran that no one knows or cares how to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosque.

But this argument concedes far too much in the way of black dignity for the sake of being able to demand sympathy.

Some may propose, however, that a convincing argument for communicative rights achieves too much because it contradicts the assertion that moral theory requires such a telos.

But on occasion he uses much stronger language: the property he is describing «requires a divine foundation» (emphasis added); it «provides new strength for the arguments that point to a Creator»; it «clearly suggests the existence of a divine source of power and perfection.»

If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it.

So much for Kant's argument on that subject.

Much of the ruction flowed from the pens of gay activists for whom, the argument runs, a singular motive slouched behind the disinterment — namely quieting whispers regarding the nature of Newman's intimate and (presumably) romantic attachment to his beloved, Fr.

My point is simply that some justifying arguments for such practices today are very much like the arguments employed in the Holocaust, and that is reason for deepest concern.

Often he gives us a polemic against everlasting life for mortals, and the polemic sounds very much like Luther's argument for salvation by faith alone.

If your whole argument for the existence of a god and the truth of your religion is hinged on threats of torture, you don't have much of an argument.

I love how arguments are conveniently directed towards «our sin» and «the universes answers would be too much for our feeble brains» And «it's not that h doesn't love us, we bring this upon ourselves.»

His own pet proof of «why there almost certainly is no God» (a proof in which he takes much evident pride) is one that a usually mild - spoken friend of mine (a friend who has devoted too much of his life to teaching undergraduates the basic rules of logic and the elementary language of philosophy) has described as «possibly the single most incompetent logical argument ever made for or against anything in the whole history of the human race.»

There is an argument for cutting back America's collective security arrangements, but if you are going to cut them back so suddenly, you probably shouldn't be cutting the military very much or at all.

Indeed, Arkes recognizes as much elsewhere in his argument, for he writes with approval: «During the First Congress, James Madison remarked that the natural right of human beings to be governed only with their consent was an «absolute truth.»

To recall, my criticisms were based not so much on the substance of Dr. Podles» psychological or anthropological research but on the use of that research for the rest of his argument.

So much for your argument.

Here's my latest list — this seems like a good spot to set this down, as nobody's posting much on this thread... ---- bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to post that wonderful argument: Many, if not most are buried within other words, but I am not shooting for the perfect list, so use your imagination and add any words I have missed as a comment (no one has done this yet)-- I found some but forgot to write them down.

The debate, then, is a lot harder for my side to win; the arguments for sex ordered toward procreation within marriage are much stronger than «man - woman good, man - man / woman - woman bad.»