The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has no use for such arguments.
There's no room for such arguments on this week's quiz — just a choice of four answers.
Bosses say it is unfair to make firms and shareholders pay for the sins of a few rogue salespeople, but Ms Kroes has little time for such arguments.
There have been analyses and frameworks for such arguments, e.g. Toulmin's work on reasoning (Toulmin [1958]) and Ravenscroft's online system (Ravenscroft [2007]) for prompting argumentation through types of sentence openers.
However, while these challenges are certainly significant, it would be wrong to exaggerate them: for, as we have also seen, the range of potential uses for such arguments is wide, while it seems that their intriguing power, as well as their alluring promise, will mean that philosophers will continue to be drawn to them.
Nonetheless, the potential for such arguments has been kept alive, by reassessing their possible uses, where it has been suggested that they can perhaps be given a more modest role, which then makes them more viable and enables their apparent difficulties to be set aside.
But I have no enthusiasm for such arguments.
Technically speaking, there be may be some justification for such arguments, since aircraft carrying national leaders hold diplomatic immunity.
These principles are self-evident, in part, because they are not amenable to direct argument or proof, for any such argument "will either take for granted the thing to be proved" or be "something not more evident" (EAP V.i: 361; for more discussion, see Cuneo 2004, 259 and Davis 2006, Ch. 6).
