5110
Macaulay's argument in favor of the Reform Bill of 1832 that were really convincing was his argument in favour of parliamentary reform. Thank you very much, but what exactly is his argument. I'm reading over the Bill and just cannot understand what his argument actually is.
If you are referring to ancient Rome, there was not an anti-imperialist argument.
The major argument was the absence of a bill of rights in the Constitution
Depending on the definition of the word "nation" there are two very different answers.Nation as a Politically Sovereign Entity: Israel was created entirely on land that constituted part of the British Mandate of Palestine. A mandate is a sub-national, colonial entity and is certainly not a nation. Therefore Israel did not "replace" or "displace" any nation if this sense of the term is understood. (Would someone say that the creation of the United States displaced a politically sovereign nation? - same argument)Nation as a metaphor for a Conscious Ethnic Group:Whether the Israelis intended to or not (there is much debate on the subject), Arab Palestinians who lived in the British Mandate of Palestine were forced to flee in some parts and were scared into fleeing in other parts of the territory that would become Israel. The Palestinian People were certainly displaced by the Creation of the State of Israel and the ensuing war that this action provoked.
"Which of the following..." means "Here is a list of choices. Select the best answer from the list."Without the list, it's not possible to speculate.
They are two different cultures. Palestinians are generally Arab Muslims, with roots in the area going back to at least the Byzantine era, if not longer. Israelis are generally Jews of all ethnicities, traditionally believed to be the descendants of the diaspora come back to the "Promised Land" of Moses. Each has a strong argument as to why they should be there, but only the Israelis have had recognized legitimacy from the Western World, especially the US.
Because both parties have lived upon the land for a very long time. Both have ancestors who have lived and died there and each would be offended if they were forced to leave the land of their forefathers. Furthermore, each side has their own reasoning for being entitled the land. The Palestinians had previously owned it. However, Zionists (people who believed that the Jewish people should have their own nations) exiled the Palestinians with help from the British. This is considered unjust by Palestinians. Jewish Israelis believe that, according to the Bible (Genesis ch.28 and elsewhere), they are entitled to the land of Israel because of Divine command. Secular Israelis like to use a more objective argument and claim that the Israelis took a part of the land by U.N. resolution, and a further part from the Palestinians through war, fair and square. Therefore, they have earned this land and are entitled to keep it. This is the conflict in essence, though it gets much more complicated than this. See also the attached Related Links.
The U.S. saw the Cubans being treated by the spanish the way the british treated the colonists.
It depends on what you are deducing and why. It just means your argument fails and anything depending on it does too. So you need to either find a valid argument or show that one cannot be formed.
No, not at all. He was insane and an egomaniac.
5110
Either the property of a person/business, etc - or - general ideas/theroies regarding a certain argument.
traditionv. Diversitypopularity v. Aesthetic value
State your argument outright at the beginning, and structure your paper so each paragraph helps you prove that point.
The basic argument is religion, a long way second is who owns the land they are on.
The ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that is based on the concept of existence or being. It suggests that the very concept of God being the greatest possible being necessarily implies his existence. This argument has been presented and debated by various philosophers throughout history, such as Anselm of Canterbury and René Descartes.