Sentences with phrase «on argument writing»

C3WP supports high - quality professional development with rich, teacher - developed instructional resources designed to bridge teachers» current practice, as well as the implementation of complex, multi-day instructional sequences focused on argument writing.

Our impression is that, as far as the focus on argument writing goes, the Standards» writers would love to be like the spouse who tells his or her partner on a Monday night that it doesn't matter where they go to dinner — he or she can choose whatever restaurant for them to go — while knowing full well that the only one open is the favorite of the spouse who is supposedly being magnanimous.

Not exact matches

In response to a post by a Twitter user which said Musk should provide «some very strong arguments in a well written blog piece to win over the (myself included) skeptics,» the Tesla and SpaceX CEO wrote: «Movie on the subject coming soon...» Now, why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

«The government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim,» the judges wrote.

I wrote my thesis on the philosophy of history with the central argument that Industrial Civilization would collapse and either be replaced by a new emergent socio - economic revolution an order of magnitude higher than industrialization and agriculture combined, or we would go back to the stone age or extinct.

«The argument is the types of things we're doing now with information technology just don't show up in GDP because a lot of what we do on the Internet is free,» or very nearly so, says Philip Cross, a former chief of economic analysis at Statistics Canada who wrote a paper on the slow - growth economy for the Fraser Institute think tank last year.

Vik writes: The ongoing argument about this being the new internet to the grandest pyramid scheme is perplexing and similar to the current debate between Elon vs. Zuck on AI.

«The US government acted as police force (identifying the foreign government's crime), prosecutor (making the legal arguments), jury (ruling on the evidence), and judge (sentencing the foreigner to US retaliatory punishment),» Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the pro-free trade Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in a memo about Section 301's history earlier in August.

Turley writes that Daniels «may have the stronger legal argument» because Cohen filed the restraining order on February 27 for Essential Consultants, not Trump.

Saskatchewan's fight against Justin Trudeau's carbon tax rests on the same argument as B.C.'s opposition to the Trans Mountain project, Chantal Hébert writes.

This summer, with all the good letters already taken, the former labor secretary Robert Reich wrote on his blog that the recovery might actually be shaped like an X (the imagery is elusive, but Reich's argument was that there can be no recovery until we find an entirely new model of economic growth).

«I believe it is a matter of fundamental fairness that the American people be allowed to see both sides of the argument and make their own judgment,» Schumer wrote in a letter to the president released on Sunday.

Gawker had written an article challenging his argument, similar to an article from The Washington Post and others on the same topic.

Regarding the Confederacy, I recently wrote a book on the last major initiative in 1861 to avert the Civil War — the Washington Peace Conference — where both sides extensively made their arguments.

Accordingly, as J. Bottum puts it («Christians and Postmoderns,» FT, February 1994), «postmodernity is still in the line of modernity, as rebellion against rebellion is still rebellion, as an attack on the constraints of grammar must still be written in grammatical sentences, as a skeptical argument against the structures of rationality must still be put rationally.»

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical but sly arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

At one Evangelicals and Catholics Together meeting, writes Tom, the Catholic co-chairman of ECT, which Chuck helped found twenty years ago, some of the Catholic members questioned the value of natural law arguments «on the philosophical ground that no reason exists that is not already deeply saturated with prior pre-understandings and commitments.»

The «at first breath» argument is offered most comprehensively in To Gaurus: On How Embryos are Ensouled, a text believed to have been written by Porphyry, a third - century student of the «founder» of Neoplatonism, Plotinus.

Werner Jaeger, who has written the classic history of the idea of paideia, [2] pointed out in a later book on Early Christianity and Greek Paideia that Clement not only uses literary forms and types of argument calculated to sway people formed by paideia but, beyond that, he explicitly praises paideia in such a way as to make it clear that his entire epistle is to be taken «as an act of Christian education.»

In fact, today I had planned to write a post speaking out against tentative plans in the Tennessee legislature to adopt immigration policies similar to those that caused such controversy in Arizona, basing my argument on the inherent worth of our Hispanic neighbors.

It should be noted that the book was essentially written before September 11, and some last minute stitchings about what the war on terrorism might mean for the world and American culture do not sit well with the burden of his argument.

If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus» existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts).

Christians, then, should make their arguments carefully, winsomely, graciously, and firmly, in the hope that «the law written on the heart» will overcome emotional prejudice, intellectual laziness, and moral compromise.

As I was reading these chapters, the thought flow, argument structure, and illustrations were almost identical to what I had written on this blog in 2013.

Colson and Eckerd may not have written the definitive scholarly treatise on America's woes, but they have something important to contribute to our public argument.

His posts are reliably written on a level, both gramatically and in terms of presenting his argument, that should embarrass any fourth grader.

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.

It is now a commonplace that he probably wrote more on the ontological argument than any other philosopher — a book, a substantial part of two others, and about twenty articles, replies, reviews, and forewords.

And while I have learned quite a bit from my reading in these sources and still use quite a bit of those insights in my own teaching and writing, I have also read from various alternative perspectives on the Jewishness of Jesus, and have come to believe that these other perspectives have slightly better arguments and stronger positions.

My purpose, therefore, is not to provide a systematic critique of the book, but rather to comment on two of its more interesting aspects, namely: (1) its argument that the Federalists, in writing the Constitution, were actually defending the principle of the «neutral» state, and (2) its attempt to apply «neutral state» principles to the issues of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

John Adams wrote, «His arguments... were ridiculous, but whether they proceeded from honest Ignorance, or foolish Supersti [ti] on on the one hand, or from willfull Sophistry and knavish Hypocrisy on the other I know not.»

Knox seems to acknowledge that some of ourproblems arise from our «friends», when he writes: «There will be fresh attempts to dissociate natural theology altogether from our experience of the natural world around us, to concentrate more and more on precarious arguments derived from the exigencies and the instincts of human nature itself.»

You speak on what is «True Doctrine», could we also point to something such as the Consti; tution and the daily court room arguments of lawyers and clerks who feel that they alone know and understand the true meaning of the what the framers when they wrote the laws of this land?

In other words, J. Denny Weaver's approach in this book is that he read a bunch of books on the atonement, and then wrote 5 - 10 pages summarizing the views and arguments of each book, which are then all compiled into this book on the atonement.

He himself has written hundreds of pages on the subject.70 However, it will be within our purpose to explain generally how his treatment of the theistic arguments accords exactly with his neoclassical understanding of God.

You may be able to make an argument that Paul and some of the other disciples wrote to some of the early churches as a collective, but even these writings focused on individual responsibilty.

Not only should Palin not have released this crap on an unsuspecting public, but I think one can make a cogent argument that she doesn't even have the right to write this crap.

I wrote out my argument, vetted it through my graduate faculty, and sent the resulting amended version of a paper called «Organism and Teleology» on to the newly founded journal, Process Studies.

Lewis warned readers of the hazards of relying on intellect — particularly apologetics — over spirituality, writing, «That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality — from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself.

«Although the book was written against her now dead half - sister,» continues Gonzalez, «Elizabeth resented much of what it said, for its arguments based on anti-feminine prejudice could just as easily apply to her.

Failing to synthesize all the elements of our argument on the nature of apostolic succession, Wahlberg writes that Collins and Walls

Growing out of a series of books and essays Kekes has written over the last several years - on the nature of moral argument, the problem of evil, and the conflictual goods and evils that make up life as we know it - Against Liberalism marks the author's most explicit broadside against liberal theory to date.

I'm saying that there is prejudice in the written word, when that word is written by someone clearly on one side or another of an argument.

gman, you are using one fact and distorting it to something written in the Bible that has an ambiguous meaning, a common thing I see on here with Christians that try to prove their arguments.

Regardless, most of my argument is based on the context and historical situation Malachi was writing to, as well as the cultural context of the sacrificial system.

Since there are many new readers on this blog, and since probably everyone who has been here longer than a year has forgotten the basic argument I am trying to present, I figured I would spend one post summarizing my view and inviting people to go back and read some of what I have written previously only this topic.

Observer, wrote on Sunday, October 2, 2011 at 3:27 pm, stating, «Richard, It's always easy to see when someone has lost an argument and is out of facts, they resort to juvenile name - calling.

When Newman came to write his Essay on the Development of Doctrine, he makes the point that «the absolute need of a spiritual authority is at present the strongest argument in favour of its supply.»

Fr Pereiro relies heavily on the rather dubious argument that if Newman opposed, in writing and conversation, Wood's and Abbe Jager's theories of development in the early 1830s then he can not at the same time or earlier have entertained similar ideas himself.