The greens dispute this argument, asserting that "as cattle eat grass most of the year, this small premium would represent a tiny price differential for the customer (eg 2c on a Sunday roast)".
The draft report had dismissed this argument, asserting that in most cases, officers had confronted people on the basis of their own observations, not identifications by victims or witnesses.
But today, Mr. Nader shrugged off that argument, asserting that some Democratic nominees to the court have compiled conservative voting records.
Mrs. Clinton's pollster, Mark Penn, disputed that argument, asserting that after five months in the race and extensive spending by Mr. Lazio on television advertisements, voters were as familiar with the Republican congressman from Suffolk County as they were with Mrs. Clinton.
Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the argument; once exclaiming: "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!" However, he later criticized the argument, asserting that "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies".
One Bush administration argument asserts that only military officials — not federal judges — have the power to decide how to conclude wartime detentions.
Then a topological argument asserts that cat ( N ˜ ε ) ≥ 2 cat.
The essentialist is pointing out that the anti-essentialist's argument asserts that the latter intuition undermines the former, but does not say why.
The 'external' position, or 'constructivist' argument, asserts that immunology's models of identity are derived not just with the assembly of epistemic facts, but include the entire cognitive and organizing principles of a widely held conception of personhood as the scaffold for their interpretation.
That argument asserts that the case should be tossed on First Amendment grounds.
