This question makes perfect sense. This question makes no sense at all.
The two testimonies in the court trial were in direct contradiction to each other.
An argument is an attempt to persuade someone to see a better, different perspective, a contradiction are two simple statements that cannot both be agreed upon without being hypocritical. An argument is derived from feelings as opposed to simply having a different point of view. Arguing often allows you to support what you're saying you give reason for what you believe in. You can contradict yourself if you dictate something and then prove yourself against what you said. For example I said, "I don't ever wear black shoes," and then the next day I am wearing black shoes. On the other hand an argument involves two or more people going back and forth. They are not the same word and have different meanings you couldn't use both of these words in a sentence to describe the same event. I think if you could contradict a person within your argument, but the contradiction is not the essence of the argument. Additionally, people could agree on certain aspects thereof, which would still qualify it as an argument despite the absence of contradiction.
bill is a mot
Philosophy is similar to science in which they both use the scientific method. But in which case there are more components in science that there are in other philosophies. For example, We make observations and ask questions in both. We also have a hypothesis of what could or might happen; but in science we have two other components to hypothesis. We have to be able to test it in the natural world and also make predictions or If- Then statements, which can not be one in other philosophies. In science, we also have to test it; which also can not be done in philosophy.
One statement that marks a difference between these two places would be that Nan Province, Thailand, has a tropical climate and Philips County, Montana, has a colder climate.
when two peple are aganst each other
an oxymoron
The two testimonies in the court trial were in direct contradiction to each other.
Wanting two things that contradict each other; like attacking a country to pacify it.
It's not that WikiAnswers contradicts itself, it's that WikiAnswers' users contradict each other. WikiAnswers is made up of individual contributors (users), and since everyone has their point of view and their way of knowledge and doing things around here, they tend to contradict each other.It's just two different people's ways of doing things, and sometimes they just happen to contradict each other.
No. An oxymoron are two words together that contradict each other.For example, silent scream."Misspelled" and "word" don't contradict each other, even if it was spelled "mispelled". It's merely ironic.
The answer is 0%. If two of the following are lies, the only two combination of statements that don't contradict each other is B and C which leaves A as the answer - the chicken came first.
A rectangular triangle is an oxymoron! A triangle cannot be rectangular and no rectangular shape can be a triangle. The two words contradict each other.
Search for additional evidence to see which argument it supports.
No, that is a descriptive adjective. An oxymoron would be two things that contradict each other such as "clean dirt" or dumb Asians.
Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. How should historians determine which argument is superior?
I can't be sure of exactly what you mean when you say "different". -- The two objects attract each other if their charges have opposite signs. -- They repel each other if their charges both have the same sign. These statements are both true whether or not the charges on the two objects have the same or different magnitudes.