Sentences with phrase «n't debating your point»

And I wasn't debating your point, but more the implication.

WhySoSerious - You weren't debating my point, because you'd lose.

Not exact matches

Yes, he'd understood the science of DNA testing was incomplete, and that there was vigorous debate over the efficacy (and even potential downside) of population screening, and that it still wasn't clear if the process had reached the point where two different testing companies would even arrive at the same results.

Any genuine debate on this point isn't over principle, but enforcement, like setting out what's a reasonable split when family members really do contribute.

The proposal has generated a great deal of often vitriolic debate over the future of the wheat board, and the C.D. Howe Institute recently weighed in with a report arguing that global grain markets have changed significantly over the past few decades, to the point that the CWB is more often than not a price taker.

«The key point of debate was whether the soft demand for Apple phones was already incorporated into the full - year SoC test outlook provided last quarter; it doesn't appear that it was.»

The team debates the possible role of Japanese offensive strike capability but does not recommend a policy change on that point.

My impression is that stocks will not see a durable intermediate - term low until the point where a recession in progress is taken as common knowledge, without the debate that persists even now.

They quickly pointed out that Europe is too large simply to assume that the world can absorb large changes in its capital and trade accounts, and as they debated about the ways global constraints would affect the assumptions about European surpluses most of them quickly decided that either the markets would not permit surpluses of this size, perhaps by bidding up the euro, or the impact of these surpluses would be very negative for the world.

Meanwhile, the world is not standing still while Canadians and British Columbians debate these issues, which was a point made by several commentators at the Summit.

The point of this post is not to debate whether an investment in Amazon is a good idea.

«We have the best damn care team in the business — at this point, that's not even up for debate,» Legere said.

It is not clear to me at all, even if we do get past the issues with mining centralization, segregated witness, lightning networks and hard forks, that Bitcoin (or Bitcoin - like) blockchain - based cryptocurrencies are the way to do it, but I'm open to informed debate on this point.

Whether $ 100 million or $ 500 million in annual revenue is needed to justify a similar investment in the new market can be debated, but that's also not the point.

At that point, it was about masturbation only (no one had made a comparison to homosexuality), so, without much personal stake in the debate, I thought to myself «See, this is why people don't like the answers, not (always) because it doesn't let them do what they want, but because the answers are sometimes very poor indeed.»

It is what has lead me to my veiw that Atheism as a religion, the passion most Atheist have for their point of view from the start you may not fall in this category but I'm sure you know someone that does.The same applies to Christians that freak out on someone and start forcing their view on others, I see that as wrong also if someone asks or brings the debate to you then by all means debate but why be rude how does it help?

Again, though, that was not my point (as I think the debate would become interminable on this or most any other blog!).

Scholasticism Theology moved from the monastery to the university Western theology is an intellectual discipline rather than a mystical pursuit Western theology is over-systematized Western Theology is systematized, based on a legal model rather than a philosophical model Western theologians debate like lawyers, not like rabbis Reformation Catholic reformers were excommunicated and formed Protestant churches Western churches become guarantors of theological schools of thought Western church membership is often contingent on fine points of doctrine Some western Christians believe that definite beliefs are incompatible with tolerance The atmosphere arose in which anyone could start a church The legal model for western theology intensifies despite the rediscovery of the East

History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history... Elaine

I like to debate if people show they have a legitimate point to make, but quacks like cosmos and salero just aren't worth my time

i; m not sure i follow your little brother thing, but sharing ideas and a conversation with two differing view points is a debate, and if both parties don't try to kill the other one this is a world of understanding thru conflict, for a differing point of view is in confliction with the others.

your immature, irrational and absolute blind remarks toward atheism have been proved that there is no rational argument beyond this point, I suggest you read my post to the fullest and absorb it's meaning, and continue to act like a civilized being, your behavior is not acceptable in any rational debate, you are not making yourself look good.

I will not enter that debate here, except to say that the reflections on memory that dominate Book X have everything to do with the story that Augustine has been telling to that point.

«If the Church is ever mentioned» in such debates, he pointed out, «it is in the gratitude expressed that we have not attempted to «appease» the Church or the Church hierarchy, or else in the (unintentionally) patronizing allusion to those who care about the University's relationship to the Church as implicitly conceiving the University along the lines of a seminary.»

Despite accepting the invitation at one point, the debate still hasn't happened for reasons I don't understand.

No point in debating whos invisible big brother is bigger or meaner or will or won't punch whom before actually having your big brother show up at the playground.

Not as pithy as the quote being debated, but the point seems quite clear...

yawn... of course we all have subjective biases... i'm honest about mine... and really, what is the point of having the samed tired debates here... you already have your opinion made up, won't truly listen and will hear anything i say through that lens

Again, personally, I do not care who gets married, but this man is just being completely dishonest and if you want an honest debate you have to come from an honest point of view.

It's not minutia or peripheral — it's the CENTRAL, DEFINING point of the debate.

But though I will argue for this teleological view of nature and human nature from empirical premises and from reason, my purpose here is not to debate or attempt to prove this point, but rather to illustrate how some teleological understanding of nature and human nature is a necessary premise for the idea of environmental stewardship.

As Erasmus pointed out in his debate with Luther, God would not have called us to choose him if Luther's position were correct.

There a lot of things in this Universe worthy of debate and should offend us to the point we take action, this is not one of them in my opinion.

Historians of the French Revolution have debated the point as to whether or not it was the ideas of the philosophers concerning human rights, equality, justice, democracy, freedom or the interests of the ordinary people pinched in belly and pocketbook that led to the uprising of 1789.

The point is not to debate or challenge, but to ask the sort of questions that will help us understand one another better.

Remember that the point of our interview series is not to debate or challenge, but to ask the sort of questions that will help us understand one another better.

The point here is not to debate the relative merits of Hobbes and Locke, but to stress the atomistic individualism of modern political theory in both these forms.

I feel like because Obama had stated at one point all religions lead to heaven, and how he never stated his faith during the debates and Romney did, that the faith most be bold, not hidden.

It is a sad day when ministers, priests, and people of good conscious actually have to debate whether or not to speak of the great inequalities in America, and justifiably point to the systems that promote it.

that's not the point of the debate (despite your repeated attempts to go back to that debate).

the point was not to * avoid * that topic, but to avoid * repeating * that debate unnecessarily.

Note how you jump to verse 8 when you recite the verse, leaving out the key point at verse 6: «If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, «Let us go and serve other gods,» which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers...» Here the person is not entering into a debate but rather asking you to go and serve other gods — that is when when God is saying watch out.

That's a great debate to have, and I personally believe that if you lay out Christian theology point by point and let each side objectively prove their «truth», the atheist ends up with the larger stack of chips, but that's not germane to the argument.

And it's not evangelicals, generally speaking, who are stripping the debate down to a single absurdist issue; rather, they keep trying to point out the complexities of the topic and bring each to the discussion.

Mr Newcome said the debate was not about the ethics of abortion, pointing out that the Church's position on that issue is clearly stated.

Most of your assertions are really out there, so much so that I don't see any point in debating it.

A debate in which the thoughts are not expressed in the way in which they existed in the mind but in the speaking are so pointed that they may strike home in the sharpest way, and moreover without the men that are spoken to being regarded in any way present as persons; a conversation characterized by the need neither to communicate something, nor to learn something, nor to innuence someone, nor to come into connexion with someone, but solely by the desire to have one's own self - reliance confirmed by making the impression that is made, or if it has become unsteady to have it strengthened; a friendly chat in which each regards himself as absolute and legitimate and the other as relativized and questionable; a lovers» talk in which both partners alike enjoy their own glorious soul and their precious experience — what an underworld of faceless spectres of dialogue!

The reference to John the Baptist is not a mere debating point.

Per the Book of Galatians, the question of «sin or not» is a valid point to debate in Elementary School; but we can graduate from elementary debates of the Law, and enter into the great dialog about «how» to live the Law of Christ and «how» to experience the Unity of All Believers.

The point is that «if we do not intervene in the debates concerning the interpretation of religion, we are simply playing into the hand of Fundamentalists.