Sentences with phrase «see anyone arguing»

But I don't see anyone arguing that.

I can't see anyone arguing with that team right now, as it is our strongest available line - up.

I cant see anyone arguing that point really.

Jesus drank wine and his first miracle was turning water into wine, though I've never seen anyone argue that it is wrong to avoid drinking because Jesus drank wine.

I haven't seen anyone argue that point.

Not exact matches

Can't anyone see the non-sense in arguing over either unproven point?

@Chad «I have never seen anyone successfully argue that Hitlers actions were anything other than motivated by german nationalism, however, I do think horrendous theology in Christianity over the centuries has contributed a great deal to anti-semitism, so I do think we as Christians have an ownership of a great deal of the holocaust and I wont shy away from that.

Anyone spending ten minutes on social media sites in the past couple of months will have seen Christians arguing about all kinds of issues, not least those relating to the LGBT community.

What you say is completely true, I don't think anyone could argue with Jacks ability and if he could of just kept injury free and fit I honestly believe we'd have seen one of the finest midfielders in our history.

So I don't see how anyone can rationally argue that Barnes went after Manny's head.

Ot: anyone else see our little spaniard and the chilian argue about something in the liverpool game?

Go ahead and argue your side as I think most people here bring interesting perspectives from time to time, but I have yet to see anyone here corner the market on Truth (myself included).

For now, I'll argue that in 2016 we saw an example of the limits of data and digital to elect a president... or anyone else.

Most bloggers would say yes — they would argue that anyone trying to influence politics should participate in what they see as the collective conversation about politics.

During her State of the County address, Mahoney argued that there is «not a single thing» in the Consensus report that will «spell disaster for anyone,» and that people should see it as an opportunity rather than as a threat.

(On the other hand, one could argue the socialistic management of Cuban, Venezuelan, Bolivian economies - socialistic but non-Marxist nature of Latin American countries, but I am yet to see anyone do so for the CPI Marxist.)

Not sure how anyone who's seen Twigg and Byrne in «action» could argue that ditching them would make the shadow cabinet weaker.

Netropolitan found radical, but well - argued, opinions on everything, from whether anyone in Britain other than economists can actually see the alleged economic recovery, to whether science is dead.

I am an ethical vegan concerned with health, and so I must be aware of my own bias, but I just don't see how anyone could argue with his comprehensive synthesis of all the latest nutritional research.

I don't really see how anyone could argue otherwise.

I can not see how anyone can argue that we have made gains by the direction that we have moved.

Anyone who argues otherwise either fails to see the forest for the trees, doesn't know who butters Delta's bread, or simply works for SkyMiles.

Anyone that complains about flicking the Wiimote to do sword moves obviously hasn't played the game on the Wii, I can see arguing it may not be as responsive as button presses, but it is far from something that is to be «hated».

It doesn't seem like anyone on set was ever sure what kind of future this would be, either — in one scene, two extras are seen arguing for access to an oxygen dispenser — despite everyone in the movie breathing freely without any hassle.

In my naive opinion, unless more than half the warming is due to human influence I don't see how anyone can argue to switch the null from natural warming to human influenced warming.

I'm not here to argue with anyone, and I will probably never see this article again.

It is difficult to see how anyone can argue against it, and it provides a means to unite people from both sides of the argument.

Given the present state of the science, I can't see how anyone can argue for 50 - 50, 80 - 20, 20 - 80, or almost any other range,.

Dan Luna, chief of river forecasting at the National Weather Service in Chanhassen, said: «It would be hard - pressed for anyone to argue that we're not seeing evidence of warming.

And, will anyone who thinks they've already seen posts arguing against the collection of QC data please quote those posts and explain how you arrive at that interpretation?

He argues that while Tesla will also be making use of ZEV credits, they have not calculated these into their financial projections because a) they are unsure of what value they will have, and b) CARB has previously amended strict mandates under pressure from the major car companies, as anyone who has seen Who Killed The Electric Car will know.

If you're interested in seeing what playing the player instead of the ball looks like, check out the alarmist site Only In It For the Gold, where Michael Tobis unleashes endless vicious ad hominem against any skeptics who raise their voice (his most recent was a long diatribe against Freeman Dyson, whom he apparently considers a geriatric buffoon), and opens threads on what names one should call «denialists», regularly bans commenters who argue a point too vociferously, or anyone claiming scientific credentials but arguing against «the consensus».

At this point and even if you disagree, do you at least see why I'm arguing that CO2 = CAGW Climate Science has operated according to an unscientific definition of «peer review» and has, therefore, conveyed the wrong idea of what real science is to anyone who, especially through no fault of their own, is ignorant of what real science does?