这是他们的第一论点：,当人们犯那两个错误中的一个时,他们就开始陷入理论。
That's their first argument: people become embroiled in theory when they make one of those two mistakes.
在整个敏捷社区中传播这种论点是错误的。
It is wrong to spread this argument to the whole agile community.
你现在能够表达反对意见，是因为认为这个论题是错误的人们，提出了更好的论点并证明了它。
You are able to disagree now because people who saw that argument as faulty set out to make a better argument and proved it.
你能够驳斥相反的论点并说明为什么它是错误的吗？
Will you reject the counterargument and explain why it is mistaken?
关于有效论点的一件很有意思的事，就像你们看到他们可能有错误的结论。
One of the interesting things about valid arguments as you'll see is that they can have false conclusion.
你们可能问自己，为什么一个有错误的结论的论点，应该是一个有效的论点，这是好论点。
And you might ask yourself, why should an argument that has a false conclusion be an useful argument. Mind at good argument.
此论点认为目前的环境是完全错误的。
This holds that the present circumstances are in fact all wrong.
有些自我封闭式论点来回变化,从有趣的到错误的宣称。
Some self sealing argument move back and forth from interesting to false claims.
赞成就是用论点证明这个议题是对的。而反对就是用论点去证明议题是错误的。
Pros are arguments which aim to promote the issue, while cons suggest points against it.
或者，有人认为我的论点的逻辑靠不住，我会在将来的一次讨论中努力改正错误。
Or, if someone feels the logic of my argument was weak, I can make efforts to correct it in a future discussion of the topic.
教授：关于这一个，你只要有这种感觉，你被两个不同的论点感动，一个是错误但有趣的，以及另外一个。
Prof: well on this one, as soon as you get the feeling that you are being moved from two different propositions one of which is false and interesting and the other.
根据上面提出的论点进行推理，可以设想不再出现大量可能的程序设计错误，促使质量上极大的进步。
By inference based on the argument presented above, one can assume that a large number of the possible programming errors were never made, resulting in tremendous gains in quality.
如此结论支持了之前的一种论点，即消极情绪对于修正个人行为反而有积极影响，因为病人会因此更加在意自己的错误。
This result supports previous findings that some negative emotion has a positive effect on behavior modification because patients care more about their disease.
如果支持紧缩的论点是错误的，那么决定紧缩就会危及复苏，可能还会触发进一步的财政危机。
If arguments for tightening are false, decisions to do so threaten recovery and might trigger further financial shocks.
有可能是柏拉图有意的，在早期理论中犯下一些错误，从而鼓励你们去独立思考，这个论点有问题。
It could be that Plato's deliberately putting mistakes in earlier arguments so as to encourage you to think for yourself, "Oh, this is — here's a problem with this argument."
他的回答写在2005年的一篇题目为“多数”的论文中，其论点是：从新药的临床实验到前沿的遗传学研究，生物医学的研究中充满了错误结论。
His answer, in a 2005 paper: "the majority." From clinical trials of new drugs to cutting-edge genetics, biomedical research is riddled with incorrect findings, he argued.
你们明白，如果那是一个演绎有效的论点，它是通过错误这个词的意思，不是吗？
Do you see how that is-if that's a deductively valid argument it in the virtue of the meaning of the word wrong. Isn't it?
这个论点有两个错误前提，但仍然有效好，接下来的呢？
Isn't that an argument that has two false premises but is valid.Okay right what about the following?
大卫·克莱因说，反驳论点的唯一可能性，只能在于那珍贵的、经过时间考验的粒子物理学的标准模型被证明是否还存在着某种错误。
The only possibility of a counterargument, Cline said, is if the venerable, time-tested standard model of particle physics is proven wrong.
你的论点，不用担心这个，犯这样的错误情有可原。
And your attempt of argument there, and don't worry about this at all this is a perfectly reasonable mistake to make.
你的论点应该用英语清晰、简明、易懂地表述。其中应该不存在任何语法、句法或拼写错误。准确且优美的表达会得到相应的奖励。
Your argument should be expressed in clear, concise, and readable English. There should be no errors of grammar, syntax, or spelling. Precision and elegance of expression will be rewarded.
你的论点有一个致命的错误。
在论文中，大量的合适的译文例子和翻译错误被用来证明论点。
Plenty of adequate examples and translation errors are given to illustrate the point.
但这种论点是错误的。
这星期的最佳的参加者，将是一位有创造性的和引人注意的参加者，其论文论点最强，较少有英语语法错误，将被奖励最高30分！
The best participant of this week will be a creative and interesting one which will be rewarded highest 30 points as strongest argumentation and little English grammatical errors!
可是这就一定表示你的论点正确而我的论点错误吗？
窃取论点，预期理由：在一个论据的前提下某人希望证明结论的逻辑错误；回避问题。
The fallacy of assuming in the premise of an argument that which one wishes to prove in the conclusion; a begging of the question.
他一下子就抓住了我当时正在发挥的论点中的一个基本错误。
He quickly seized on a basic flaw in the argument I was developing.
他一下子就抓住了我当时正在发挥的论点中的一个基本错误。
He quickly seized on a basic flaw in the argument I was developing.
应用推荐