Sentences with phrase «not much argument»

The entry is arguably (but not much argument is needed in my opinion) the best in the series.

Not exact matches

First, there were 125 men in one large room... The men were very considerate of each other, and I didn't hear a raised voice ever, much less an argument.

, and in the piece they discuss why stories are much more influential than facts (again, a conclusion backed by numerous studies) through their ability to change emotional beliefs in a way that «logical» arguments just can't touch.

The shale revolution weakened a strong and intuitive argument in favour of the Keystone, namely that the pipeline would serve to transport much needed fuel to be used domestically in the U.S. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper's pledge to turn to China after Washington's temporary rejection of the Keystone in early 2012, hasn't amounted to much so far.

And it wasn't an argument so much as it was a scenario.

So, this argument that affirmative action somehow is causing it doesn't really seem to have much of a logical basis.

I'm not sure your arguments will have much influence on Aud

All the while, these companies have made an overarching argument that they should not have to follow the kinds of laws that every other industry in the country — very much including the ones that they are disrupting — follow.

They can't win votes saying they'll bring up the global price of crude any more than they can make the unemotional economist's argument, that anything but the most interventionist government action won't do much to help short - term job prospects.

The decision to label Cohn a «globalist» on his way out the door is, at a minimum, a suggestion that he lost not a specific policy argument about steel but a much larger argument about the overall direction of the Republican Party.

The point being if you have other sources of support you don't «need» to rely on SS so much, or at least I suspect that will be the argument put forward.

Of course it matters to anyone who wants to understand the economic cost of the adjustment, but arguments about whether the reported data are overstated, and by how much, have become part of the bull vs bear debate about whether Chinese growth is merely slowing temporarily, and not as part of a major economic reversal of the growth model.

There can be no realistic argument not to make adjustments just because it would strain the Mexico economy (which is much in need of reform, why do auto workers only make $ 5 / day?).

The key thrust of Jarret's arguments in various articles on this topic seem to be «people who have much more experience in this than Musk have already proved this doesn't work.»

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

Part of their argument: Cohen isn't actually much of a lawyer.

So it's not only longer than the bonds we were issuing then but the argument, «well, it's not really that much longer than this bond is,» is perhaps that extrapolation that makes me a little bit nervous, that there is too much complacency.

I'm not a Libertarian but even I understand the arguments and complaints about giving too much power to a government, no matter what government that may be.

An argument over the truth of string theory isn't much like an argument over race, class, or gender — not to mention sex.

What Hitchens wrote about the evils of religion was not so much a scholarly argument, but more a wave of righteous indignation that levelled everything in its path.

Jeff's position makes much more sense than the Christians, and I don't see an argument from their position against his.

Once you start swearing and name calling, you pretty much have told everyone your argument can not stand up.

The argument is not worth much more than that.

RS If they're anything like the creationist arguments being presented here then I'm not missing much, am I?

But he did not give us much of an argument as to why these have to be united and how we know that fact.

When I suggested that he was grievously mistaken, he responded, as he had to Woodward's doubts about his stance on abortion, not so much by refuting the argument as by rebuffing the individual who had the gall to question his wisdom.

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.

My argument is that if a reasonable, sane and reliable witness tells me he has experienced something which modern science, in all it's glory can not explain, much less degrade, then the simplest rationale is to accept that he has indeed had an encounter with the supernatural.

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.

Since you do not know what pain or how much either the animal nor the plants feel, your argument falls apart.

I see your argument as being there's an even deeper human condition that the arts can't ignore, no matter how much the artists want to, even if the spiritual world they are picking up on is godless or serving a different god.

The book does not really present «the voice of first millennium Christianity» or make much of an argument toward «restoring the great tradition» (as the subtitle suggests it might).

We live in a country that would never elect a non-christian (which says much about how much power christians have... hello theocracy) The argument is whether or not belief and opinion should affect policy.

But it's not so much an argument of how «we» as Christians chooses to structure our regular meetings or find comfort in them, it's more about the perception those meetings elicit in both believers and those outside the body.

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.

While I can not develop the argument here, I believe it makes sense to understand unilateral power as a special case arising out of the more basic relational power, much as determinism arises statistically out of subatomic indeterminancy.

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

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.

DO NOT insist on religious leaders making their case by reasoned argument, but by bald assertion or authoritarian claims which are much easier to invent and promote.

Yet there is not so much as a paragraph on this urgent issue in Wiebe's argument.

I just can't stop laughing at how much the Russ», the new - man's, the devin's, the kermits, the Rainer's, etc., etc., on this blog are so desperate to be in control and demand that the Doris» stay on the «current» argument since they can't handle anything that deviates outside their talking points.

(11) The real argument, however, was not so much with tradition as with a church which used tradition authoritatively.

The argument that is being debated now falls, in terms of some of its aspects (not cohabitation in general so much as male homosexual couples specifically), within limits that are held to be inviolable.

(Although there is a large segment of Christianity that believes God literally dictated the Bible, so my argument doesn't hold much weight with them) This is the journey, this is the constant search, is it not?

«If you leave your wild beliefs out of your argument, you'll have a much better chance of making a point that is logical to anyone other than you» -------- So why didn't you give that advice to Doc when he insinuated that God is anthropocentric?

In many ways this argument with Brightman can be seen as a formative moment in Hartshorne's thinking which taught him as much about what he could not allow into his thought as about what he could.

I don't normally think that dictionary definitions bring much to any argument, but in the case of creationism vs evolution, its shameful that one side can't even be bothered to know the meaning of the word that they're using in highly semantic arguments.

I am in my 30s and while I will say that I have not every single argument from the pro-choice side, I will say that the variations really have not changed that much.

You said: «I am not much on religion, but this sign says to celebrate reason, however there is no reason in an Atheist's argument.

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.