The argument of the story is that rather than relying solely on laws to dictate our behavior, we should naturally embody compassion and a sense of moral duty towards others, akin to the Good Samaritan from The Bible. This suggests that true decency should come from within and not just from external rules and regulations.
The tone of the story would likely be one of advocating for compassion and kindness towards others, emphasizing the importance of moral values over strictly following laws or rules. It may suggest that our actions should be guided by a sense of humanity and decency rather than just legal obligations.
The passage argument for appellees is an example of a legal argument presented by the party appealing a lower court's decision, wherein they outline their position and reasoning for why the lower court's decision should be upheld. This argument typically includes citations to relevant case law, statutes, and legal principles to support their position.
Dred Scott argued that his time living in free territories should have made him a free man, as these territories prohibited slavery. He claimed that this should have nullified his status as a slave under the Missouri Compromise.
An impartial judge will hear both sides of the argument fairly by listening to the evidence presented, applying the law fairly, and making a decision based on the facts of the case rather than personal bias or external influence.
James Madison argued that slaves should not be counted for the purpose of representation in Congress because they were considered property and not citizens. This argument was part of the Three-Fifths Compromise during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
The Genre is Non-Fiction, because it is a Op-Ed Article.
In the UK the Samaritans
Opposing
An argument should present a clear point of view or claim supported by evidence and reasoning. It should anticipate and respond to counterarguments, showing why the claim is valid and persuasive. Ultimately, the goal is to convince the audience of the validity of the argument.
That depends on what the argument was about
The thread of an argument refers to the logical progression of ideas and evidence presented to support a particular claim or viewpoint. The presentation of an argument should be clear, organized, and persuasive, with a strong thesis statement, supporting evidence, counterarguments addressed, and a compelling conclusion. It should be structured in a way that guides the reader or listener through the reasoning process step by step.
kick him in the nutsjust kiddingfind somthing really expensive and ask him to buy it for you because you want it, and if he doesnt buy it, then use that as your argument why you should get a job, if he buys it for you, why do you need a job?
Provide the opponent's arguement.
Maybe you should call Samaritans in the UK on 0845 7 909090 or try Samaritons.org I hope this helps you.
A deductive argument should never be characterized as uncertain or probabilistic. It aims to provide a conclusion that necessarily follows from the premises, making it either valid or invalid based on the structure of the argument and the truth of the premises.
A philosophical argument should involve presenting a clear thesis or claim, providing reasons or evidence to support the claim, addressing potential objections or counterarguments, and drawing logical conclusions based on the premises presented. It should also aim to be coherent, well-structured, and engage with relevant philosophical concepts or theories.
Just talk to him, only if he doesnt have a gf, just tell him lightly how you feel and how you feel connected with him in a way you cant describe tell him you understand if he finds it weird but, he should have the decency to aknowledge that you had the balls to tell him, good luck friend.