Sentences with phrase «opponents argue»

Opponents argue that state law requires that the Malkins pay «fair value» for all shares.»

Opponents argue that the model is not «sex positive» or that the treatment providers are not adequately trained in human sexuality.

(Planned Parenthood does not use federal money to pay for abortions, which make up a sliver of its operations; its opponents argue that money is fungible and that any tax dollars going to the organization indirectly subsidize abortions.)

This is a powerful argument to unsheathe when opponents argue that licensure is the only regulatory mechanism that can be trusted to ensure competence in health professionals.

Bitcoin opponents argue that Bitcoins have no value and are therefore not good means of payment.

Opponents argue that life insurance can't be a good investment because there are too many costs and the returns are minuscule.

But many pipeline opponents argue that new energy infrastructure to support expanded extraction of bitumen from Alberta's oilsands would lead to spills and push Canada's climate change goals out of reach.

Opponents argue that adding an additional hurdle to an already emotional and grueling divorce process may not be in the best interest of the families involved.

But opponents argue that even testing could have harmful impacts, that there are questions of ethics and international law that remain unanswered, and that even raising the prospect of geoengineering distracts from initiatives to curb emissions.

But that was one of very few attempts to regulate the issue internationally, which opponents argue is a big missing ingredient given that large - scale deployment of technologies in one country could have significant impacts in others.

Our opponents argue that what we are trying to protect has no significant «economic» value — that nature is just a luxury that has no «value» compared to the value of things like creating more «jobs.»

Opponents argue biological similarities make it difficult to distinguish between the two varieties and can hinder law enforcement.

Opponents argue that sharks will, after enough exposure, learn to associate human presence with the possibility of food, which can potentially increase the risk of shark attacks.

Proponents of seal hunts insist that the animals are killed humanely and the white - coated pups are not taken, while opponents argue that it is irresponsible to kill harp seals as they are already threatened by declining habitat.

Opponents argue that its relatively high content of the toxin, erucic acid may be a real cause for alarm.

Downloadable software opponents argue that online software such as TurboDispute's is less secure, but studies show that those accusations are false.

Opponents argue that this new bill would make bankruptcy too viable of an option for homeowners, thus flooding the courts.

Opponents argue that vouchers are not reaching the children most in need of better schools.

Opponents argue that this model is detrimental to students, especially in the low and middle tracks largely comprising low - income and minority students (Slavin, 1990).

Supporters like the concept, but opponents argue that the proposal promotes segregation.

Proponents contend that caps help limit the growth of the sector, and thus control the overall quality of charter schools (by encouraging authorizers to be more discerning in approving applications and more rigorous in closing low - performing schools).79 On the other hand, opponents argue that charter school caps stifle the growth of high - quality schools and may deter high - performing operators from even applying to operate in the state.

Opponents argue that the for - profit structure diverts public resources to private businesses and that the profit - seeking nature of these organizations creates incentives that jeopardizes the education they provide to children.67 On the other hand, supporters argue that the desire for profits incentivizes EMO staff members to attract and retain «customers» by providing high - quality services.

Opponents argue that many of the standards are not age - or development - appropriate, and that they constrain the ability of teachers to adjust their teaching to their individual classrooms.

Proponents say charter schools offer affordable alternatives to traditional public schools, while opponents argue they eat away funding from traditional schools.

Opponents argue there's little evidence the private schools do a better job and that pulling money away from public schools only makes it harder for them to improve.

«Alternatively, opponents argue that, if accommodations are provided, it may invalidate the SAT or ACT scores for college admission purposes.»

Opponents argue that vouchers take funds and higher - achieving students away from public schools and divert them into private schools, undermining the quality of public education.

But opponents argue that this approach will simply standardize mediocrity.

Opponents argue legitimate change should sprout from within a community, and not be spurred by outsiders parachuting in to rally parents.

Opponents argue the law will siphon money from struggling public schools and erode the education quality of public school students.

Opponents argue that covering those costs would mean hurting already underfunded programs like English Language Learning classes.

And it's why its opponents argue against it so strongly.

Opponents argue that charter schools lead to increased racial or ethnic stratification of students, skim the best students from traditional public schools, reduce resources for such schools, and provide no real improvement in student outcomes.

Opponents argue that students will avoid hard thinking in personalized environments without teachers.

Opponents argue that whatever gains may accrue to charter students, the cost to the public school system is far too high.

Proposition B opponents argue that 73 cents is an «outrageous 729 percent tax increase.»

Eggs: While some say organic eggs are no higher in quality than conventional eggs, opponents argue that organic eggs are still worth the splurge because they can be more nutritious and free of dangerous chemicals and antibiotics.

Opponents argue that it's immoral because it destroys life.

Opponents argue that cognition involves not just passing along information, but also interpreting it into some sort of abstract, meaningful representation of the world, which the web — or a tray of Scrabble tiles — can't quite manage by itself.

Opponents argue that it would lead to higher releases of greenhouse gases.

But opponents argue the plan places too much emphasis on a patient's MELD score.

But the plan's opponents argue that EPA doesn't have the authority to go beyond the fence line — that the agency has authority only to spell out standards for the polluting power plants themselves.

Supporters say it's a step toward humane farming while opponents argue it will put some farms out of business and could drive egg production out of the state.

But rail opponents argue projects such as the Kenosha - Racine - Milwaukee commuter line are not worth...

Opponents argue that it will result in fewer jobs, larger class sizes, and less money being available for scholarships and tuition relief.

Opponents argue it wouldn't in fact save any dough given the associated technical and administrative costs; that it would create a burden for seniors and other non-web-friendly constituents; and that it would constitute yet another financial blow — $ 20 million in annual revenue, per one estimate — for numerous local newspapers in an industry already struggling to survive.

The Act provides a number of criteria to be fulfilled before a pregnancy can be terminated, although opponents argue the procedure is too simple.

Opponents argue that the bill will needlessly multiply the number of questions before voters and make it harder for voters to stay informed.

Obamacare opponents argue that some of these make no sense as universal mandates; for example, people who are unable to conceive plainly do not need maternity coverage.

The law's opponents argue that fraud is rare and actual voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent.