Sentences with phrase «same side of the argument»

We are not on the same side of the argument.

Until Amazon starts with that, I'm happy to have them on the same side of the argument I'm on.

I'm not sure I could cope with you and I being on the same side of the argument.

I find this ironic given that you are presumably on the same side of the argument as Dan Kahan who is quoted as saying [T] here's good reason to believe that the self - righteous and contemptuous tone with which the «scientific consensus» point is typically advanced («assault on reason,» «the debate is over» etc.) deepens polarization.

Not exact matches

Now, you know, the tables have turned — kind of the same argument on the other side.

If that's your reaction, the complete post is worth a read in full, but the essence of Gabriel's argument is that, «rushing and being late are two sides of the same coin.

It's a more complicated argument, but the flip side is that employees may not want to work full - time hours anyway because, under the economics of Obamacare, they can bring home the same amount of money working part time as they did full time — and still get benefits.

For starters, you can use it as a way to list the pros and cons of each side of an argument, much in the same way that ProCon.org does for major and controversial political issues (see my example below).

It was, rather, to show proponents of same - sex marriage that «the other side» is reasonable and that their arguments are worth engaging, rather than dismissing out of hand as irrational and merely or privately religious.

He simply represents the most harmful, dangerous kind of radical Christian there is — fork tongued — ready at an instant to wage war or give love — even on the same damn side of an argument if it is «politically» advantageous for his to do so.

But what I detect in it is the work of someone who was never all that interested in investigating the arguments on either side of the same - sex marriage debate; whose scant interest in it has now been fully exhausted, both intellectually and morally; and whose present conclusions hover in mid-air without anything to support them other than a wistful regret that he has lost a hoedown partner in a gay man who has come fairly unglued over the issue.

The other side of the argument is almost certainly doing the same thing, and at the end of the day the winner will be the one most successful at building trust in themselves and their argument.

The argument of «it's a vote for Stefanik» is a terrible one - she and wolf are two sides of the same coin.

but at the same time, it is hard to present the pro-war side fairly when many of their arguments are obviously absurd, callous or evidence of their desire to mitigate their sense of loss, embarassment, or guilt.

We've been quietly bemused when two opposing sides of a major education policy debate have cited the same Toolkit strand to back their arguments.

The flip side of the same argument is that shorting a good business is a dangerous thing to do, even if it is significantly overpriced — the time is working against you in that scenario, and the business might just earn its way up to its previously too - high valuation.

The good news is that some local and state governments have understood these commonsense arguments (backed by reams of studies and statistics) and have avoided passing «feel - good» laws in favor of smart, targeted legislation that actually addresses problems and puts pet owners and animal control enforcement on the same side.

Or is Paul defending against the charge by making a numbers argument — the scientists in question are on the same side as the consensus, so to challenge any aspect of global warming science or politics is to make a statement about «the majority of scientists» (many of whom are in fact social scientists)?

At the same time, I support Ryan O.'s concern about the need for quantitative arguments; I find personal attacks unacceptable in a scientific discussion; finally, from my experience I think that exposure of one's research to specialists in different fields can be extremely productive, to say nothing about the fact that as scientists are working for the humanity, speaking with educated human beings the scientist is speaking with the ultimate consumer of his / her work, which entails both sides to a mutual respect.

Climate change denier Nir Shaviv, an advisor to the GWPF as well as to the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), also argued for the opposition side of the argument earlier in the same debate.

It was the point which chiefly occupied the attention of the counsel on both sides in the argument — and the judgment which this court must render upon both errors is precisely the same.

In somewhat the same vein, put up a hand if you're in favour of a new rule of lawyer's professional conduct which states that lawyers acting for the winning side in a law suit are allowed to comment on the merits of the result for the media — print, electronic, and otherwise — only if the lawyers concede, on the record, that the decision is wrong on the facts and the law, and that they were surprised (nay, astonished, flabbergasted, etc) that any of their arguments were accepted by the judge.

Based on some of the comments posted, it is quite apparent that many realtors suffer from the same disease as do die - hard union members — as long as they sit around their offices complaining to eachother about how the Competition Bureau is treating them unfairly and convincing eachother that the service that they provide is truly worth what they're paid to do it — they'll never hear about or learn to appreciate the other side of the argument.