Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good.
下次当你陈述你的立场时，要为你的陈述形成一个论点，并诚实地问自己你的论点是否是个好论点。
One day later, people who had a resolved argument reported no increase of negative emotions compared with those who avoided an argument.
一天后，与那些避免争辩的人相比，解决问题的人就不会增加负面情绪。
When people had an argument that they considered resolved, they had half the reactivity of those who avoided an argument.
当人们有一个他们认为已经解决的争辩时，他们的情绪反应是那些回避争辩的人的一半。
Prof: yes you could say that, but that would be a different argument, but still an argument.
教授：是的你可以那样说，但是那样,就是另一个论点了，但依然是一个论点。
I praised you for leaving out the argument indicators but the only argument indicators I want you to leave out is Since and because and so on.
你们去除论点指示词值得表扬，但是我想让你们去除的唯一的论点指示词，因为和因为等等。
And you might ask yourself, why should an argument that has a false conclusion be an useful argument. Mind at good argument.
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。
Prof: And therefore it became an argument or you started to see that it was an argument. Is that right?
教授：所以这成为了一个论点，或者你开始明白这是一个论点，对吗？
And try to make the argument you actually give, so then when we start evaluating argument we can look at it.
试着创造你们给出的论点，然后当你开始评价论点的时候，我们可以看看。
The concern that open data may simply empower the empowered is not an argument against open data; it's an argument against looking at open data as an end in itself.
关心公开数据也许授权被授权的不是针对公开数据的争论；这是一个针对公开数据以自身为目的的争论。
He particularly encouraged internal argument among his advisers, thrashing out both sides of an argument.
他尤其鼓励他的顾问之间进行内部辩论，并且会反复研究辩论双方的观点。
Actually a valid argument doesn't have true premises and true conclusion what is a valid argument?
实际上一个有效论点没有真前提和真结论，什么是有效论点呢？
So they way this argument, we can reveal this argument much more carefully saying "many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources."
这是论点的方式，我们能揭露这个论点，更小心地说，“许多新兴国家，没有资本资源。”
We'll move on to inductive arguments now an inductive argument, what's the whole marker of the inductive argument?
我们继续到归纳论点，现在一个归纳论点，什么是归纳论点的全部标志？
So let me finish with a brief outline of Barkleys view of perception which is the main argument that he used against Locke's argument related to this.
让我把柏克莱关于感知的要点简单归纳下，他用这些主要的论点来驳斥洛克的相关理论。
You may attack the person making the argument rather than the argument that is being made.
你可以攻击那个人，做出论点，而不是之前做过的。
Do you think an argument could be valid if all its premises of the argument is false?
你们认为一个论点，如果前提为假，可能有效吗？
I think we are, I have just said that it is extremely important in analyzing an argument, not to evaluate the argument.
我想我们，我刚刚说过这在分析论点中是很重要的，不是评价论点。
That's a strong inductive argument, why isn't that a deductive argument?
这是个有力的归纳论点，为什么不是演绎论点呢？
That's right. So if you have a valid argument a deductively valid argument in which the conclusion is false then you know one of the premises must be false.
对，所以如果论点有效，一个演绎的有效论点中结论是假的，你就知道前提中有一项是假的。
And I said we we're going to set out logic book style all we're going to do is identify the argument, analyze the argument, reveal its structure.
我说我们会把它们设定成逻辑的课本形式，我们所做的就是识别论点，分析论点，揭露结构。
A fallacy is an argument that looks like a good argument, can easily be mistaken for a good argument, but isn't a good argument.
谬论是看起来像好论点的论点，很可能被误解为好论点，但不是好论点。
I call the second argument "the argument from recycling" — not the best label I suppose, but I've never been able to come up with a better one.
我把第二个观点称为“循环观点”，可能这不是最好的名称，但是我没有想到更好的。
Don't forget a conclusion is anything that plays a role in an argument and in this argument, this is not playing a role in the conclusion.
别忘了结论可能是，在论点中有角色的，在这个论点中没有扮演角色。
If you find this argument convincing, what it's an argument for is the claim that even if souls do exist, they may not be the key to personal identity.
如果你信服这个观点，我们要证明的是，就算灵魂真的存在，也不是人格同一性的关键。
The first, second and third Ways of Aquinas’ arguments are often called variations of a more general argument, the Cosmological Argument.
因此必有某种事物是一开始就存在的，也就是人们理解意义上的上帝。阿奎那前三种论证方法通常被称为一种更通用的论证的变形——宇宙论论证。
Anselm's ontological argument or William Rowe's complex version of a probabilistic argument from evil.
的本体论进行论证，或是罗威廉William Rowe复杂版的有关邪恶的概率论证。
Okay, 2 questions to ask is, that isn't an argument or that isn't a good argument.
好，两个问题是，没有论点，或者不是一个好论点。
okay there is two things that are both necessary for a sound argument and a good argument as so far as soundness goes.
好，这里的两件事,对于论点和一个好论点,都必须的。
Note that the first argument is not an argument at all, as no comma (,) separates the level (KERN_CRIT) from the format string.
注意，第一个参数并不一个真正的参数，因为其中没有用于分隔级别(KERN_CRIT)和格式字符的逗号(，)。
This says, I need a second argument to it, and that second argument better be a point so I can do the comparison.
这里我需要第二个参数，第二个参数最好是一个点，这样我就能做比较了。
应用推荐