Sentences with phrase «valid arguments on»

And if there are scientifically valid arguments on both sides of a controversial topic, we present both sides so that people can make their own decisions.

It acknowledged there were valid arguments on both sides of the issue but preferred the conclusion that the expiration of the limitation period for P's hypothetical damages action against D2 — hypothetical because P did not sue D2 in time or did not sue D1 at all — did not provide D2 a defence to D1's contribution claim.

There are valid arguments on both sides, as purpose - built electric bikes are said to be better able to handle the additional torque and stresses that electric drive systems put on the frames and components, while the kits that enable conversion of a conventional bicycle into an electric bike allows cyclists to use the bikes they already own and ride as the starting point.

People with valid or supposed valid arguments on both sides of the issue.

Not exact matches

Here is a post from Libertarian News that begins, «I recently got into an argument over on the Reddit Bitcoin boards where I held the position that fractional reserve banking with Bitcoins was not possible,» which sounds fun; he recants that view but does make what I think is a very valid point:

@Liz — It seems like the argument you are making is valid but only from the perspective of either creating a high risk of complication / retardation which science has proven when children are born to closely related people, and the «Ick» factor of not wanting to imagine two siblings getting it on.

Fortunately, crack pots on either side of the extreme make it easy to shoot down their arguments, because they don't have many valid arguments.

My point being that taking a member of the set of all things Jesus never explicitly taught on and positing, if only by implication, that his silence is an endorsement of that thing is not a valid foundation for making a sound argument.

Basing your arguments on quotes from books you yourself don't seem to understand is as valid as me quoting the back of the cereal box except the back of the cereal box usually has nuggets of truth!

In fact, the crunching of numbers to make an argument appear more valid is done by pretty much everyone on this planet.

Hartshorne declares that there are many possible valid arguments for the existence of God, but his writings concentrate on perfecting various forms of neoclassical versions of the traditional «ontological» and «cosmological» proofs.

«Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided — it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy.»

Truth is a teleological argument for the existence of a supreme intelligent entity is more valid than any argument based on random chance that I have ever heard.

Your argument is valid and certainly one I agree with for the long term, I just don't like seeing Denver spend money on a guy for insurance purposes.

Yet many supposedly intelligent and reasonable people acted as though they were entering into a real debate on breastfeeding in public spaces, as though it were possible a valid argument might exist against a child's right to be fed.

My point is that this issue is not nearly as black or white as supporters on either side would have us believe; there are valid arguments to be made for eliminating flavored milk from school lunches and for continuing to offer that choice.

But any actions would only be seen as legally valid if there was an argument to fall back on that they were being enacted on at least someone's advice, and with some elected minister's consent.

Rejection of data based on your anecdotal experience does not constitute a valid argument.

But it is a valid argument and you can imagine liberals going either way on it.

Those are all valid arguments when deciding on a gym membership, or searching your closet to find The Perfect Dress to wear to that wedding so you don't have to drop $ 200 on a new one.

There can be many difficult but valid arguments as to who pays when you meet someone on a BBW date site, but most people agree that it's not fair that one person pays all the time.

And if we are going to say you have to ignore the books and review the movies on their own merit, then it's is a valid argument to say that the violence or lack there of and the «dumbing down» of the social commentary doesn't work.

During 2011 — 12, the district focused on implementing Writing Anchor Standard 1 (W1), which states that students must be able to «write arguments to support claims in analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.»

If the increase in non-AMZ revenue doesn't come close to making up for the lost sales in AMZ, then it's not really a valid argument, other than lessening your reliance on AMZ (which I agree is a sound long term goal) and also being able to get into Bookbub (since they wont feature a book in Kindle Select.)

Focus on producing a valid argument which will support your thesis.

Include valid arguments and relevant positions on the topic.

A number of valid arguments exist for each side, and the answer depends on who you ask.

Theories that rely on markets remaining open and liquid, such as many arbitrage - type arguments are not valid except when the market has «fair weather.»

While there are valid arguments at this time as to whether one should rent or own their primary residence given the absurd amount of debt most are carrying on their principal residence along with artificially cheap money and the boomer influx about to hit the real estate markets across Canada over the next few years it would seem you are okay in that area.

I think this is one of the instances where the arguments on both sides are equally valid, and the investor taking a position or leaving it is equally justified in doing so.

Do I even have a valid argument based on information I provided?

Average Joe, Required: The RRSP vs mortgage debate goes on forever because both sides have valid arguments.

btw i agree with you on your valid argument about the errors in «the Order 1886».

The older the cheaper argument seems a valid one on the surface but remember that the XBOX has still been selling in high numbers in recent years.

They also assess fairly the quality of the arguments that have been made in response to the Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al (2005) papers in the hope of focussing discussion on the more valid points, rather than some of the more fallacious arguments.

He has opinions on climate change, but it is a long time since he has put forth any valid scientific argument on the subject.

The flip side of this is acknowledging valid points that are on the other side of the argument.

It's always amusing to read in the «skept - o - sphere,» the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments on the subject of whether there is a «consensus» and even more interestingly, precisely how big that «consensus» is, from people who say that the noting the existence of a «consensus» is not only a fallacious argument, but that in fact noting that there is a «consensus» is antithetical to the valid practice of science.

I'm all ears for arguments that claim to have the best, most reliable or valid approach to problems, but the achievement of objectivity tends to be a rhetorical device, often used in opposition to what are declared as non - objective / non-scientific arguments, rather than something which can be defended on epistemic grounds.

Just because an argument is predicated on an appeal to authority in conjunction with a «larger» argument» does not make the argument valid.

But postmodernists assert that all beliefs of all tribes are equally valid on the basis of this false argument.

They challenge this on rather solid empirical grounds and with physical arguments and data analysis that is every bit as scientifically valid as that used to support larger estimates, often obtaining numbers that are in better agreement with observation.

Therefore, instead of using «values» arguments, I'd suggest we should stick rigorously to rational economic analyses based on objective, valid information.

His opposition stemmed partly from the valid argument that they impose real hardship on Iranians, but also from the very dubious claim that they make war more likely, and from the legally ridiculous assertion that western use of financial tools to block oil sales «is a financial blockade, and blockades are acts of war.»

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

you can see buzzerboy is running on empty, no coherent valid arguments, just ad hom one liner insults lately.

If they [the hostile reviewers] make arguments which are invalid you show that they are invalid and go on if their arguments are valid you amend your theory.

Having least effect on the posterior PDF is not a valid argument as that depends on issues of experimental methodology rather than on the phenomenon being studied.

Both sides — and even a Confusionist must admit to exactly two sides on this love triangle — have victim arguments, and both sides absolutely have some valid points about potential victims.

That's not proven by studying these papers beyond the observations that their argument lacks all valid basis and is based on explicitly erroneous reasoning.