Sentences with phrase «really argue the point»

It was such a simple answer and how could one really argue the point.

Not exact matches

It is at this point analysts and economists invariably argue none of China's overspending and debt really matters.

So if you have a triune god who is father, son, and holy ghost but you have a mother of the human manifestation of father / son god — then Mary is arguably the mother of god and in that way could be argued as the more divine at some point in the history of the transformation of the triune god in heaven to the triune god on earth and of course the few days when the triune god on earth was dead (but not really dead) before rising.

I cant see anyone arguing that point really.

Alright, I * could * argue that point, but I really wouldn't want to since I can't see that discussion going anywhere productive.

They're not arguing that Paul is really preaching «salvation by works», the critical point is what Paul means by «works».

Perhaps; though the sceptic might still argue that here one is looking not at the impact of vows, but at those couples who have contrived to hold together through a certain level of psychological stability supported by sufficient conditions of external security.Let us allow the sceptic to press his point: can one really do more than hope for permanence in marriage?

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.

You are really EMBARASSING yourself by throwing out all LOGIC to try to argue a point you have completely lost.

His first point is to argue that phyletic gradualism — understood in the sense that evolution proceeds at a single uniform rate of speed, called «constant speedism» by Dawkins — is a «caricature of Darwinism» [46] and «does not really exist.»

If you really want to agrue this point at any time to anybody then you need to know the facts on both sides so you have knowledge about what you are arguing about.

Not being a medical professional I can't really argue that point.

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.»

This was after Ahaz and it has led some to argue that the prophecy was later too; if so, what is written above does not really belong to this context, but the main point is not affected.

This is on what these two are truly arguing; Wenger uses the cup as an example against Neville but Neville isn't really belittling our ability to win games, but rather, that in the long run of a whole season it is more likely for us to drop points due to relying purely on skill which is far more linked to form then something like physicality.

I read all the exchanges here and in my view theres fair points made on both sides, the overriding point here is that we DO NEED to improve in everal key area's and while it seems that last night was a real point in fact to argue that case I really don't feel that we are going to make those key changes this summer.

It's difficult to argue the team has lacked spine recently, but that's not really my point.

Also, they recent lost 3 - 0 to AS Roma in the Champions League, though many would argue that it wasn't really a key game, from the overall point of view of the season.

When I pushed back and pointed out that 1) some women experience supply issues if they attempt to restrict calories enough to allow weight loss, even when they really * want * to lose weight and 2) not everyone is, in fact, overweight, and those women will indeed need to eat more to produce enough milk without causing nutritional problems for themselves they instead argued that it's such a small amount of extra food that it's inconsequential.

So the pluralist challenge for Caroline Lucas is whether she is going to strongly back the Yes campaign, which is seen as positive by most - longstanding pro-PR voices across various campaigns or parties, or continue to argue after the next few weeks over the Bill that there is nothing much at stake, so that through to next May her primary point is that it doesn't really matter if its not PR.

While Spitzer argued early on in the debate that «ad hominem attacks at this point are really not appropriate for this campaign,» the former governor pushed Stringer on his record.

«I would argue that [more than] 10,000 data points really tell a better story,» says hydrogeologist Donald Siegel of Syracuse University in New York, whose team published the new study online this month in Environmental Science & Technology.

And this is something that physicists have been arguing about for a very, very long time, but what the authors of this article point out is that the work by John Bell, but also some more recent experimental work, seems to indicate that in fact there really is a deep nonlocality to the universe; that there really is someway in which there is not some sort of missing x-factor that if we just knew what it was that would explain everything; that we would see the dominos connecting, those invisible tiny dominos connecting those different particles and set up the effect of going one to the other.

At this point, rather than arguing back and forth on the comment section, I'd suggest that you call in your question to the podcast so I can really address it in detail...

Here is a few arguing points found in the current research to help you decide whether or not HFCS really is a danger.

And then you come along with 14 different antioxidants, all of them absolutely necessary and I really do not argue that point.

For weeks, I've been eagerly anticipating the official start of fall, since after that point, no one can really argue that it's too early for pumpkins, doughnuts, scarves, and sweaters.

I really don't give a flying f*ck if you read my posts or not, but do try and at least muster the energy to read up on the point you're so eloquently arguing before arguing it.

Some would argue that Hopkins» Hannibal Lecter is a focal point of the film, but that's a tenuous position to hold as the film really is about Clarice Starling and her attempts to catch Buffalo Bill.

To Amy's point about the difference between a role where Tom really gets to act, in the classical sense, versus one where he stages He - Man battles against CGI and his own «I do my own stunts, thankyouverymuch» mortality, I'd argue that a number of his best turns feature him capital - A Acting his way through He - Man battles against his own emotions.

And, by the way, it really was just one line he seemed to dislike — the point of the post was to argue against spending yet more taxpayer dough on an education - centered stimulus, not for complete separation of school and state.

You make absolutely no point other than those two I've stated in arguing to it not being the car we've been waiting for and they aren't really valid points are they?

Anyone who's ever spent time with one will likely tell you that it's hard to argue the point that six inches is really the ideal e-reader display size.

I scarcely need to argue the point — simply give me a couple of books, and a day or two of your time, and that's really all that's needed to teach you the essentials of investing.

I know far too many investors will focus on this (management) metric, to the exclusion of all else, so let's not even argue the point... because it's really not going to help the cause anyway!

I argue that you should normally be able to redeem Hyatt points for about 1.7 cents each, but how you calculate value really matters.

They can argue that a new game costs # 40 - 50 and some people would spend that a month anyway, so this is cheap when you consider the amount of games you get for the price you play, but since you'd only be renting the titles not owning them I find that point invalid really.

I mean, you can totally argue in the comments, but since this list is already titled «100 % Incontestable Incontrovertible Indisputable», there's really no point, and nobody will believe you anyway.

In some ways it reflects our own world perfectly, which some could argue isn't really the point of a game, but either way, it makes for compelling stuff.

I suppose most people play consoles on their couch, possibly with a coffee table in front of them increasing the distance to their TV; however, that really doesn't seem to matter much when arguing the point because the difference is technically noticeable if you look CLOSE and people will claim they notice the difference from far away, even though I think that is wishful thinking unless * maybe * if they have 20/15 or better vision... I think that is more of a «FACT!»

If you'd like to argue the fine points of terminology instead, we can't really stop you, but it might not be a fun Friday.

Theres really no point in arguing this.

He should have delivered on his original idea of a 400k old school point and click (I'd argue that broken age isn't really an old school point and click in it's current form anymore) And then said right well you liked that, we are going to expand out a sequel with the rest of the cash.

Having said that, i believe that China for example is really experiencing the kind of pollution that US did in the 50 and 60's, and that they are better equipped to move more forcibly and quicker than the US did, one reason is that no rational being would deploy techninology that is outdated,,, they would leapfrog to the newwer technology when building infrastructure... One might be able to argue that it is cheaper and more beneficial for developed to support that... That and the belief i have that they may not, as you point, want to experihence the consumption addiction that US incurred... (Note; the Europeans are substantially less than the US per capita emissions, a benefit of greater foresight — evidence that this is not a «western» problem

We could argue about details, but really there is no point, you and all the other CCL madcaps are convinced beyond doubt... it would be as futile as trying to convince a doorknocking Jehovas Witness that their brand of religion isnt the correct one.

In arguing ones point one tends to re-enforce what Nietzsche once called «the illusion of opposites», a philosopher, incidentally, who was the first to really point to the question of «Who?»

There is nothing left to really argue about... at some point the cost of producing electricity with coal will exceed the cost of the alternatives and the alternatives will be adopted.

Grim # 46 does get the main point I was trying to make in the passage cited, which I should remind people was written (a) for publication in a newspaper whose readership includes a large number of people who we've yet to convince and (b) was written in an attempt to engage with someone who was seeking to argue in terms of probabilities and was suggesting that a 30 % likelihood that AGW is happening or will happen is not really something to worry about.

Without that point, it's really hard to even visually argue for a pause.

When you try to use the word «faith» to argue for a point that should be (if it were really true) even more important (the idea of a soul and eternal life) than any question of science, and yet place a lesser burden of proof upon it, you are really only exposing your own naïveté.