Sentences with phrase «people argue the point»

On a side note, when I make this argument, sometimes people argue the point.

Not exact matches

Ideology aside, Demographia has a point when it argues that Dallas beats Toronto also because more people in the Texas city can afford to buy a home.

And I'd argue that point is a lot sooner than many people want it to be, or are ready for it to be.

The primary point that people are missing, he argues, is that money being pumped into Spain from Europe is going to the banking sector through the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring, a government - sponsored organization that will now be overseen by the IMF, and not the Spanish government itself.

Many people's careers, he argues, «are blocked by their beliefs and the point of view they take.»

A lot of people argue that point.

At one point during the transition, Kushner had argued internally against giving Conway a White House role, these two people said.

«I'd argue it's more on the psychological side of things, whereby people see a new major policy pointed at the housing market and take a bit of a step back, temporarily reassess where they are in the marketplace before perhaps moving back into the market.»

At this point, the vast majority of people my age — being honest, the dividing line seems to be around 45 years old — roll their eyes and, in a perfectly rational manner, argue that a currency is usually boring and backed up by meaningful institutions such as central banks.

The christians would argue in response to your point that god essentially commands them to convert as many souls as possible so that those people (you!)

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self - replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the «givens,» but leave them implicit in their calculations).

The point is that if more people are admitting that they are Atheist then it is cool but, does that herald the end of the church... no and as we have been arguing a few threads up... the Faithful have continued to grow.

Often, he'd get people from various denominations who wanted to argue points of theology with him.

There is no point arguing with the narrow minded people.

Don't misunderstand me; some evolutionists (particularly some of the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, who argues in his new book people who don't believe in evolution are on the same level as Holocaust deniers) have gone ape over their theory (forgive the pun) to the point that they seem to forget it is a theory, and refer to it as if it is an undeniable scientific fact.

It can be argued, however, that to minimize the miraculous and thereby conclude that what occurs in nature in relation to particular persons can not be controlled by God alleviates the problem of natural evil only up to a point.

Of course any reasoning person would not, those of you who would argue this are only, at this point ad hominem or ad argumentum.

That's like trying to start your car with a house key and when someone points out that you can't do that, arguing that the person that is telling you that is ugly.

If you can't argue intelligently and make things up to prove your point, you must realize that intelligent people are going to call you out on it.

I'm not saying the unnecessary suffering of animals is good, or moral, but rather pointing out that your perspective on the subject is no more rational, no more based on fact, than that of the people you are arguing against.

The people who simply wanted to argue about anything and everything would have stoned her to make a point, except for one thing: Jesus asked each one to judge himself before he judged her.

I never argued whether the resurrection was true or false (that's a matter of faith and people die for their faiths all of the time), but the fact that he lived was my point.

Ok, now for the first part: It's clear that [laughing] is not well read, because he has argued that people are still reading when clearly my [right turn clyde] point is that people are not.

This second point is important because the two issues are usually treated separately» as if what one argued about relations between members of the same sex was quite different from what one might argue about relations between people of different sexes.

If I were to argue against abortion the way you argue for it, I would point to late term abortions, regretted abortions, or the abuse of abortion by people who use it as a form of birth control, etc..

We're in an energy crisis, stupid religions are fighting each other, men are so afraid of women in other countries having any kind of personal freedom, people are starving, the world is becoming over-populated to the point where it simply can not support itself, and you prefer to sit around and argue this stuff instead.

In the end, I can't argue any point by saying «I am right, because people who agree with me have a statistically significant tendency to be more intelligent than people who disagree».

So far I have argued three points: that persons engage in behavior patterns which can be characterized as purposive, i. e., as exhibiting a structure of aims, values, and methods of attainment; that individuals and institutions are interrelated, with each side influencing and being influenced by the purposes and activities of the other, although with neither being in any way reducible to or explicable solely in terms of the other; and that the institutional pole in this interaction shares with the individual as its opposite those characteristics that define its behavioral patterns as purposive.

Up to this point, Paul's objector was trying to argue that only the Gentiles were guilty, and that the Jewish people had a privileged status before God.

If you want to make a point about people not having jobs... I think you can do a better job of arguing that CNN and other groups are spending too much time concentrating on a single subject.

Cronus: Argue your point all you want, but to state that atheists have killed more people than Christians is just a lie.

No point in arguing something which, even though we have some evidence, people just don't believe.

Instead, they argue that the very nature and origin of the universe point to the existence of an intelligent creator, much like writing in the sand would point Robinson Crusoe to the existence of another person on the island.

A person can use Darwinism to justify any preference; he simply points to some person or animal with the trait he likes and argues that it's natural.

Point number six, of course, is stated in about a dozen different ways, with people arguing over what the actual requirement should be (repent and be baptized, confess your sins, say this prayer, etc, etc), but for the sake of this blog post, I don't really care about that.

To some extent, and this is a point sometimes missed, arguing simply for the limited freedom for the Church to act as she desires in her own limited sphere is unsatisfactory, because it appears to abdicate the Church's responsibility to proclaim the truth for all people in all cultures.

A. F. Christian argues that «It's familial love that first gives people the idea of infinite love,» and that «it's families that make people religious, not vice versa,» a point Eberstadt addressed in another article.

But although atheists might argue that a «disbelief in the immateriality or immortality of the soul» would not «make a person less caring, less moral, less committed to the well - being of everybody on Earth,» A. F. Christian is quick to point out the evidence to the contrary.

Some might argue with this by pointing to the preceding verse where Isaiah says that God meets with people in their rejoicing and in their righteous deeds (Isaiah 64:5).

Regardless of how one translates the text, these issues do not affect in any way the main point I am arguing here, that the people at the time of the flood told God to depart from them, to leave them alone.

John Sailhamer has argued that one of the central points of the Pentateuch is to show that the law was ineffective, obsolete, and not what God had wanted for His people at all.

Actually I think those conflicts are due to people... people that just so happened to grab religion as an arguing point.

The point of my post was not to argue the semantics of his name, just to point out that you're dumb for trying to correct people and act like you are smarter, know more about their religion, and hence you're correct on all your points.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

They somewhat argue that the journey of faith doesn't really begin until a person recognizes the existence of God, but even then, this point of faith is long before a person actually believes in Jesus for eternal life and becomes what we might call a «Christian.»

It is the market economist who argues for hope, who points to creativity when others push for control, who recognizes that people are good, in a fundamental, real sense: assets, not liabilities.

This is purely a political topic where it seems that many people seem to be speaking out of both sides of the their mouths to argue their point.

Two of the people I spoke with named J.J. Watt, Von Miller and Khalil Mack as the only defensive players who can move the spread while another representative specifically singled out Watt, arguing he could be worth as much as 1.5 points.

Argue the points people bring up because you don't know those people any more than you claim they know Peters.

Not many people would argue about a Chelsea win spelling the end of our title challenge as it would put them 12 points ahead of us and get one of their potential stumbling blocks out of the way and give them a massive boost of confidence.