arguing

1. Reason for opposition: Discussion: "It is time to discuss debate and to stop formulating it" (Paul Craig Roberts)

Try to prove by reasoning; maintain or discuss: Speakers believe that more immigrants should enter the country

Certification: "I can not always use similarity to prove my lineage" (Isaac Asimov)

Persuasiveness and influence (others), reasons, etc.: Controversy lowers prices

1. Propose or oppose specific reasons: insist on dismissing litigation; oppose immediate counterattacks

[Interpretation of ancient English, from an ancient French theorist, Latin argūtāre, interpretation to chatter, chatting, frequent assertions, clear, see India - the roots of Europe.

These verbs represent communication by words including differences and conflicts. The purpose of the discussion is to convince someone something or fact: "I have not discussed with you - I will tell you" (James McNeill Whistler)

It may also refer to ongoing controversy about public or professional character: "Experts are still discussing the ultimate cause of Alzheimer's disease [Geoffrey Cowley]

Langle refers to a loud, controversial discussion: "Audience ... I can carelessly hear quarrel about movie facts at restaurants and cafés" (Sheila Benson)

It is suggested that both S and the argument often pretend to be sharp, long lasting, sullen, pretending to be of small nature: "They used it over and over again, Blood cleans solved the problem of inheritance of the dynasty (Carlos Fuentes) In the past few weeks, the senators expressed dissatisfaction with the adjustment of tax proposals, see also the describe of synonyms Please give me.

Controversial speech act; controversy with a strong opinion difference; "they participate in intense debate" Opinions, controversies, differences, conflicts of differences - disagreements or disputes over important matters; "" There are differences that can not be balanced, "" well-known conflict between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party "

Neven Sesardic believes that these arguments are not backed by empirical evidence but have political motives. It is claimed that the race is not completely separated in biology This is the Scarecrow argument. "Ethnic recognition is based on a common feature based on a certain degree of consistency rather than a single feature (such as skin color), not only allows classification but also high reliability" I believe. Forensic anthropologists can use bone remnants to approximate a 100% classification of human bone if they consider several features at the same time. A.W.F. Edwards presents a similar argument about the genetic differences in "human genetic diversity: Lewontin's error".

Let's think about how the typical anti-abortion expert says. She claims or insists that life exists from the conceptual moment, that the fetus looks like a baby, or that the fetus has the characteristics of the genetic code. Anti abortion experts believe that (1) the credibility of all these claims is very obvious, (2) the establishment of either of these remarks indicates that abortion morally resembles murder It seems to think that it is enough for. The standard support selection strategy shows similarities. The selector will insist or claim that the fetus is not a human, or that the fetus is not a reasonable factor, or that the fetus is not a social creature. The parent elector may (1) the authenticity of these claims is quite obvious, (2) confirming any of these claims is sufficient to show that abortion is not illegal killing It seems to be thinking

In this definition, the fetus seems to be "existing": they are complex and developing. Some people think that our fetus' body continues to make artificial abortion a mistake. 2 It seems to me that it is wrong to kill us. If the murder is wrong, unless we prove that the extreme situation justifies the murder, we are also the same organism through the existence process, so it is wrong to kill at any stage of our development It is.