Sentences with phrase «real point of an argument»

A red herring is an irrelevant fact (or factoid) that serves to divert attention from the real point of an argument.

Not exact matches

Instead of big arguments and point - by - point apologetics, instead of reacting to slights, imagined or legitimate, political or religious or relational, I long to get on with my Father's business, to live into freedom in my real walking - around life, and I pray there's an invitation in there somewhere.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

So in conclusion, the real arguments against paleo are catching straws and missing the main point of the paleo.

Setting aside the argument that it's never too late to humanize a dangerous man (if, in fact, that's the point the series is trying to make), the caricature of Donald Trump presented in the series is so oafishly relatable he does little to resemble our very real and very dangerous president (aside from a decent impression from voice actor Jeff Bergman).

And finally, yes, let's admit that if you're assertive, there will sometimes be real points of friction and argument.

Point being, that I believe her generalized arguments about uncertainty have a real potential to become part of the denial infrastructure, due to her past reputation.

The earth has had significant Global Warming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, any day...

I realise this sort of discussion could go off - topic quite easily and I'd really rather go over the meta - argument about whether there are any anti-AGW policies which we should be «happy» about regardless of whether AGW is real or not, I just wanted to point out how weak I think this statement is.

Pointing out that these arguments lack substance — both warming and cooling is «evidence» for climate change — fails to address the real dynamic that drives them: a vacuum of political ideas.

In this the real professionalism of FitzGerald shines through: «[Acting for] all sorts... makes you a much better advocate because you see both sides of the argument and therefore understand things from the other point of view.»

But the real reason for the fight is not an argument about the finer points of our constitution.

The argument is that by not limiting the number of real estate agents you run the risk of losing the point of the work, which is to provide professional services in property sales transactions and not cut corners for the sake of cheap service.

This article and the ensuing discussion (arguments) about «commissions», first and foremost, simply proves my (and others») point that the real estate transaction industry, as it stands right now, is not a «profession», despite the fact that there are some professionals operating within the business, some of whom participate herein.