Sentences with phrase «rather flawed argument»

The next argument, then, is usually that I only ever chat about games with these so - called «friends», but again this proves to a rather flawed argument to me as I speak to my online friends about everything.

Not exact matches

Yet critics point to flaws in this argument that threaten to stunt rather than fuel China's growth.

Argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to refute an argument by pointing out flaws in the person delivering the argument, rather than pointing out flaws in the argument itself.

We all know your a devout AKB and that's fine that's your opinion, however telling another goner that he has a «Personality Flaw» because he is frusterated and upset that the club appears to not be delivering the results that they should shows that YOU have a rather distinct flaw yourself, Rather an arrogant know it all who adopts the perceived intellectual high ground, that's nice, perhaps if you are as intelligent and as well informed as you think you are it would be better to adopt a reasoned argument rather than start slagging off peoples personalitiesFlaw» because he is frusterated and upset that the club appears to not be delivering the results that they should shows that YOU have a rather distinct flaw yourself, Rather an arrogant know it all who adopts the perceived intellectual high ground, that's nice, perhaps if you are as intelligent and as well informed as you think you are it would be better to adopt a reasoned argument rather than start slagging off peoples personalitirather distinct flaw yourself, Rather an arrogant know it all who adopts the perceived intellectual high ground, that's nice, perhaps if you are as intelligent and as well informed as you think you are it would be better to adopt a reasoned argument rather than start slagging off peoples personalitiesflaw yourself, Rather an arrogant know it all who adopts the perceived intellectual high ground, that's nice, perhaps if you are as intelligent and as well informed as you think you are it would be better to adopt a reasoned argument rather than start slagging off peoples personalitiRather an arrogant know it all who adopts the perceived intellectual high ground, that's nice, perhaps if you are as intelligent and as well informed as you think you are it would be better to adopt a reasoned argument rather than start slagging off peoples personalitirather than start slagging off peoples personalities eh?

That's rather selective and flawed argument isn't it.

But its main flaw is that it is an aspiration rather than an argument.

There is a very clear sense in which I am being unfair to The Congress as I am writing about a dramatic film rather than a philosophical essay but Folman's decision to critique dramatic artifice whilst engaging in dramatic artifice means that The Congress draws your attention away from the drama and towards the film's flawed philosophical argument.

For me, there are major flaws in these arguments, which I think place way too much faith in the wisdom of crowds (an oxymoron, in my opinion)-- but I think the anger about gatekeeping is an ideological issue, rather than a wholesale rejection of quality standards.

The experts, rather than the public, could see the flaws in Wegener's argument which is why there was a scientific consensus against him.

I mean, you can disagree with it, and you can find flaws in his argument, but let's find those flaws and let's have a disagreement, rather than suddenly becoming reactionaries overnight.

In other words, there was no agreement to build the house in a «rustic» manner; (2) however, because the contract gave the Respondent a «free - hand» in designing and building the Appellants» house, it was open to him to build the house in a rustic manner if he so wished; (3) notwithstanding any such wide discretion, «the argument in relation to rusticity can not be used to whitewash every flaw in the Respondent's work»; (4) the Appellants did not act unreasonably in not signing the Respondent's daughter's defects list; (5) some of the DJ's critical comments about the Appellants» conduct (including accusations that they were «squeezing» the Respondent for more) appeared to be «rather excessive and unnecessary», and were «best avoided».