Sentences with phrase «sides of the argument as»

The aim was to present the pro-AV side of the argument as a movement for change that was ethical, young, grassroots - based and above politics.

DateCheckout.com, Online dating background checks service does not take a position on either side of the argument as far as whether we should require dating sites to use background checks but we do think they should offer them.

I'm researching the sceptics view of climate change for an international engineering firm that needs to know more about how this issue will affect us... I've got the IPCC report and other things that support anthropogenic climate change, but I need to address the other side of the argument as well, especially for a group of conservative engineers.

So instead of pointing fingers... at different sides of the argument as to who is to blame, and if nature just to blame, let's do something about it.

Therefore, if someone cites the existance a peer - reviewed paper on either side of the argument as settling an issue, you are right to call them on it.

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

Whilst accepting that there is two sides to every argument / position describing climate change as a big hoax and the depiction of a bleak medieval style future is not responsible analysis of the facts.

However arguments around the «burning question of our time» as Munk Debate moderator Rudyard Griffiths expressed it, was a chance to view champions on both sides of the economic trenches go at it hand to hand.

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).

Using Pakistan as a case study, this article analyzes the ongoing debate and concludes that while there is merit to arguments on both sides, prudent policy recommendations for the governance of the United States» covert drone program fall somewhere in between.

There's rarely enough nuance or context provided in these arguments because both sides of the aisle seem to portray the other side as being the enemy in the passive versus active debate.

That's given way to arguments on both sides of the aisle: Some critics say that it could help mask illicit activity, while others champion the digital trail as a way to improve transparency.

The conservative politician who can listen to members of the other political coalition like Reagan did, and who can learn to respond to the arguments of the other side (as opposed to just posturing for the amusement of their own side), won't just win over those who currently think of themselves as swing - voters.

Because Dreher's account of the historical relationship between realism and nominalism is basic to his subsequent argument, it can not be dismissed as a side issue.

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.

You called me out as being disingenuous when I said «that as time goes on however, I'm finding things that are helping to disprove things previously held as fact among Christians», so I have provided you an example that not only wasn't it a disingenuous statement, but that I've done my homework, on both sides of the argument, and came up with something that no one has been able to give me a response with even either the slightest chance of being possible, or falling back to the old status qua of «mysterious ways» and «having faith».

These debates will no doubt continue as they do for other classical figures whom the fundamentalists wish to claim for their side of the argument.

You do, of course realize that it is just as irrelevant, or more so than the Scriptures you disregard from the other side of the argument.

And you claim to fall on Tony's side of the argument, that as long as your theology is correct you're going to be fine.

Even among Christians, for whom scripture should be a guide to life's challenges, many cling to the idea that issues such as abortion and the end of life are so complex that only a simple - minded person, unable to see two sides of an argument, could possibly take a firm stance.

This approach is especially poisonous when examples are given of Christian views on both sides of the argument, as this leaves the impression that you can be a Catholic and support either side, because Catholics are Christians.

As the years went on, Richard seemed to grow ever more knowledgeable, poised, intellectually many - sided, and well informed about the vast array of conflicts, arguments, clashing ambitions, and hidden purposes that mark our national civic life.

Your position as the saver or spender will change issue to issue, but the point here is that each side is coming from a different foundation of financial values, and those core values feed the arguments over money rather than the money situation itself.

Ahh, no problem Bob, trust me I did not believe that the pro-choice would think of my argument as anything but flawed just as the pro-life side would think of any of the pro-choice arguments as anything but flawed.

I would just like to point out that at least as many comments coming from the supposed religious side of the argument are just as if not more «hostile and demeaning» towards those of different or no faith.

This bottom of the barrel, level of debate, as an exchange of the billboards between religious and atheist only serves to highlight a profound ignorance on both side of the argument.

Powers doesn't make a case for either side of this argument; he merely presents the situation as an example of the compromise the church may have to make.

To generalize this point, we should say that a properly constituted interreligious polemic should deploy as methods of argument and proof only tools that are recognized as authoritative and demonstrative by both sides.

But, in accordance with our earlier argument, he must not do this in such a way that the operation of absolute Being in providing a ground of the new and increasing reality is inserted side by side with the causal efficacy of the finite cause as though fundamentally it were itself a part cause.

This is why I believe it's so important to study both historical religious arguments supporting the abolition of slavery and historical religious arguments opposing the abolition of slavery (see my post on Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis» for a sampling), as well as historical religious arguments supporting desegregation and historical religious arguments opposing desegregation — not because I believe both sides are equal, but because the patterns of argumentation that emerge are so unnervingly familiar:

In the world of politics, President George W. Bush asserted the unity side of the argument more than once in the years after the 9/11 attacks - often as a way to deflect accusations that America was at war with Islam.

I see it as my duty to entertain and mock the absurdi.ties posted by both sides of the argument, though more often than not absurdi.ties fall on the religious side of the line.

It seems as though the political argument is a false one considering there are religious folk on both sides of the aisle these days

Persons such as yourself who have a similar predisposition of course will side with someone ho supports your view and pretend they are objective but honesty is never as important as winning the argument when it comes to discrediting Christ.

Afraid of being branded as moralists, or even worse, proselytizers, politicians cling to surface arguments that remain in the public's comfort zone, choosing sides in the familiar debates on school prayer, pornography, media immorality and abortion.

Metz, on his side, denies that any one party or class should see itself as the subject of universal history; 28 and Whitehead's vision allows, even requires, an argument that supports the Christian concern for «the least».

Smith says that my principle of «modal coincidence» (to be possible is to be possible for God, to be actual is to be actual for God) is addressed to the problem of the factual side, but that my ontological argument must appeal to modal logic as expressive of real possibility and necessity, and that logicians express doubts about these.

The continued string of derision of me as a Catholic or of Catholics in general doesn't advance an argument for your side.

No matter which side of the argument you fall on as to whether or not he's the greatest player of the current era of the game, it's impossible to say that he isn't enormously talented, and has had a huge impact on the sport.

My argument is if we were as prolific as the other side, such statistics that suggest we are moving the ball around without getting close to put in in the back of the net is unsettling.

How can anyone, irrespective of which side the argument comes from, claim himself / herself as correct.

The manifesto of the Labour Party has football more front and centre; while neither English football nor Labour are as uncomplicatedly working class as they once were, you're still far more likely to find a football fan on the red side of the argument.

I kind of see both sides of this argument (as it pertains to the requirement of wearing a uniform as part of being an independent contractor).

The strawman would be creating an argument of an opposing side that didn't exist prior to it and using that as a launching point for your argument.

So I guess I can understand both sides of this argument but what I hope for as a fan is that an agreement can be made and we can see just how far Nelson can go at Arsenal.

Musacchio was a brick wall in Milan's defense, shutting the Romanian side down for the majority of the game and he rightfully earned our MOTM, though a solid argument can be made for Rodriguez and Kessie as well.

I'm absolutely on the side of Motherlode columnist Lisa Belkin who shoots down this argument as not only «backwards» but also upholding the idea that these «archaically - structured» workplace models are somehow inherently correct — simply because they're old.

I've been on both sides of both arguments: As a journalist, I agree that the writer participated in blogger generalizing.

Then again, I find BOTH sides of this argument to be illigical idiots from the ground up, by somehow blythely assuming as axiom that the government owes ANYONE (straight or gay) different treatment based on nothing more than an agent of government having previously given them a paper statement that these two are now in a special relationship.