Sentences with phrase «write arguments then»

You need to understand that it is harder to write arguments then just the premises or conclusions alone.

Not exact matches

You might want to re-read what Ted M. initially posted, and then your responses... to me at least... what you wrote was not an isomorphic argument that in any way refuted Ted's, and i think - Ace made reference to that as well as - Ted.

Then, to claim that the bible wrote that too as evidence for your argument?

you telling me that ONLY 4 people knew how to write and they wrote the Gospels... and then NO ONE else knew how to write so they couldn't put forth arguments?

If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus» existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts).

It seems that maybe what John, Peter, James, and Jude did was go to a professionally trained letter writer and provided them with the basic ideas, arguments, and points they wanted to make in their letter, and then let the professional letter writer compose the letter according to the letter writing standards of that day.

Christians, then, should make their arguments carefully, winsomely, graciously, and firmly, in the hope that «the law written on the heart» will overcome emotional prejudice, intellectual laziness, and moral compromise.

The difference here of course has nothing to do with trustung what «men» have written, it has to do with faith in whatever diety you believe... If you accept that there is a diety responsible for inspiring someone to write about them then really it is not the person writing but the diety writing through them... so your argument from that perspective is moot...

Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity, THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings, THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!

In other words, J. Denny Weaver's approach in this book is that he read a bunch of books on the atonement, and then wrote 5 - 10 pages summarizing the views and arguments of each book, which are then all compiled into this book on the atonement.

He writes,» [Whitehead's] argument then makes the second and crucial point that this sense of reality which underlies all our experience comprises infinitely more than is sometimes supposed....

If the people who wrote the bible had any idea how our solar system worked when they wrote it, then you might have an argument (a very weak one), but as they clearly didn't have a clue, all of your baseless assertions hold no weight.

Fr Pereiro relies heavily on the rather dubious argument that if Newman opposed, in writing and conversation, Wood's and Abbe Jager's theories of development in the early 1830s then he can not at the same time or earlier have entertained similar ideas himself.

But, on the whole, Luther took the argument into the enemy country and deliberately repeated the words to which exception had been taken, reinforcing them: «Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now: Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and kill, as though among mad dogs, so that by so doing he may show mercy to those who are ruined, put to flight and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained.»

If you don't want to read it, and if you are easily wound up I suggest that you avoid anything he writes like the plague, then I will give you the general thrust of his argument (or what I think of as deluded ravings).

When in 1999 I wrote and warned him that his approach was disintegrative, his Chief - of - Staff, Jonathan Powell, called back, summed up my argument saying «After us the deluge» and asked me to meet then Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine, who agreed the «The genie is out the bottle».

In a much - discussed article published in December, The Atlantic editor - in - chief James Bennet summed this argument up well: «When you do nt have to print words on pages and then bundle the pages together and stick postage stamps on the result,» he wrote, «you slip some of the constraints that have enforced excellence (and provided polite excuses for editors to trim fat) since Johannes Gutenberg began printing books.

The teacher should then explain how a case makes its way to the USSC Court and what an attorney needs to do to prepare for his / her USSC presentation (write a brief and prepare an oral argument)

It involves teaching them how to look for information, organize this information into logical ideas, and then write a clear argument to support their research.

One of the main arguments for charter schools is that the government can write performance - based contracts, then close or take over schools that fall short on performance.

They then prioritise them with which arguments they think are the best, and then use them to write an answer to an exam question.

It's important to must mention that if you really believe everything you wrote, then — based on your arguments — technically, you couldn't call the man and woman who (allegedly) raised you, your real parents.

If you've written non-fiction then work with an editor who can ensure you've laid out your argument well, that all the concepts are easy to understand, that all the instructions are simple to carry out, etc..

It would be different, perhaps, if the book were not written yet, because then the selling your voice argument would carry more weight, but girl, you're just trying to sell something you want too much for someone to accept, and it's too hard to say «Please Like Me» or, in your case, your book.

It seems to me that in decades past, an author interview almost always included some story of the writer's closeness to either an editor, an agent, or both — patience worn thin, arguments that broke through to epiphanies, real influence on the work by these representatives, whose business, then, lay so much closer to the writing, itself.

If you find your arguments are properly backed up using the Qualitative Analysis, then you can write my thesis without Quantitative Analysis.

An excellent conclusion would then be written to summarize all your arguments before organizing the citation page.

If other authors can sell well written books @ 2.99 & 3.99 and make a good income after paying their expenses, then something is wrong with the picture presented in your arguments!

The minigames are a little weak compared to the rest of the game, but then you remember that you helped settle an argument between spectral Edgar Allan Poe and spectral H.P. Lovecraft over who wrote the scariest stories of all time, which was further exacerbated by a spectral Enid Blyton.

Someone writes a guest post on RC and then for eternity it's a done deal and assumed «true» when it was little more than egregious incompetent SPIN more worthy of a biased politician than a couple of biased scientists obviously incapable of thinking holistically and unable to stop creating fraudulent Strawmen arguments out of thin air trying to prove they are «right» and the other is «wrong».

And then you write: «For the sake of argument, assume that atmospheric temperature rises as CO2 rises (and falls at CO2 falls).

They then formulated an argument about what they had researched and wrote about it.

I would first have a small planning team block out the major issues and arguments, then invite people who had written a lot on each to staff up the team.

If the arguments made by contrarian scientists and the majority of the world's population can be written off as a product of screwy psychology, then so too can those made by Marshall and his cronies — and everyone else for that matter.

I keep writing more, and then erasing it, because I've realized that your debating consists of countering a few tangential points, which gives you the appearance of countering my argument, while ignoring the central point.

I got a preview of some of these arguments in May when we engaged in a dialogue at Middlebury College in Vermont; they struck me then, and strike me now in written form, as tendentious and partisan in particularly narrow ways.

The most frequent argument in support of ghostblogging is that senior lawyers routinely enlist the services of juniors to write memos, documents, CLE papers and the like, and then place their own names on the resulting product (often, but not always, with a front - page footnote thanking the junior for his or her «assistance.»)

While most of the curriculum at Harvard during this time consisted of lecture and student recitation, skills development was also provided in the form of weekly moot courts, during which students argued questions of law before professors and submitted occasional written disputations on legal subjects.121 Although Stearns had previously used moot courts in his teaching at Harvard, Story and Ashmun refined them.122 Cases were handed out the week before argument, and two counsel were assigned to each side.123 The cases would then be argued the next Friday, with the other students taking notes of the argument; the professor in charge that week would issue a written opinion.124

18 Unlike the extracurricular interscholastic competitions that bear the same name today, the moot courts of this period were mandatory exercises in the law school curriculum, modeled after the «moots» of the Inns of Courts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writing.

For example, a common problem that many of our users may have is that they're in a position of writing a skeleton argument and then a piece of legislation comes through or there's been a recent relevant case.

We then conduct rigorous research, prepare well - reasoned arguments, and write persuasive, compelling briefs to advance the client's position.

Sampson then related five particularly egregious acts the judge had identified: (1) misconstruing the record; (2) making frivolous or «stretch» arguments; (3) using slang; (4) criticizing a very recent written opinion; and (5) quoting at length.

For each case, she identifies the client's goals and then works to achieve those through legal analysis, persuasive writing, skilled negotiation, and oral argument.

As Katrina Lee has argued, having students summarize their research findings or distill the argument from a longer memo or brief into a short email can help the students sharpen their analytical abilities, which students can then apply back to the more complex writing project.51 More specifically, Lee suggests that the «freer, more liberated» process of writing emails «may offer benefits to students» learning process similar to that of free writing and oral presentation.»

They then write a complete appellate brief and present a second oral argument, this time in front of a panel of practicing lawyers and judges.

As others have written, «This argument strikes us as an example of the «chutzpah defense,» best exemplified by the individual who killed his parents, and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.»

It caught my eye because I was impressed by his ambitious goal of being first in line for Supreme Court arguments and then writing about his experiences and observations.

In substance, I don't see any difference between preparing a pleading (including a factum) filed in court that some layer then copies, or writing an article for a legal journal that tells some lawyer exactly how his or her argument should be made, even if it doesn't contain the exact words.

neutral evaluation: When a person (or persons) not involved in the case hears written and verbal information, then considers each side's information and evidence in order to help the parties to settle the argument.

If you want to be influential, you have to address important legal subjects that courts are grappling with, write clearly and concisely, effectively communicate that you fully understand the legal landscape of where the doctrine currently is, and then provide a balanced, nuanced, and well - supported argument for why your proposed step forward is the right move to make.