Its referring to proof for a speech in persuasive speaking.
136744
Intrinsic proof is proof that is inherent in the object.  Extrinsic proof is an external value applied to an object.\n\nExample: Justice is considered intrinsically good because it's inherent property is morally right.  The rule of law, on the other hand, is extrensically good if it promotes justice and extrensically bad if it denies justice.  The rule of law itself is a neutral object that is affected by the value assigned to it.
374541
If we make arguments, we ought to have some form of accuracy. \n\nOne, the guy's name is Behe, not Hebe. Two, the argument from irreducible complexity basically asserts that each stage is nonfunctional lest all the parts are present in order to work. \n\nWhat you have produced here is rhetoric, and rhetoric is not evidence. If you want to prove Behe wrong, put on a lab coat, get in a laboratory and perform knock out experiments with the Bacterium flagellum to test to see if there is functionality with deleted genes/proteins. Then you can comment.
208819
it means.. \n\nyou bet\n\nlike- of course
189827
You just did. \n\nYou writing in the 2nd person indicates that there are only two of you having a conversation; the "second person" is the one to whom the speaking is directed. \n\nSo: \n\n"You who are gathered here today - whether for good intentions or ill - your presence indicates a demand. You demand for change to take place and you have taken it upon yourself to arrive here, in this place and time, and raise your voices in one song. It is your chant to make, and your voice to raise; your fight to be fought, and your victory to be won." \n\nYou can see how tedious it can be, simply because it's all directed at the person or people you're talking to. (an author speaking directly to their readers can be said to be using the 2nd person perspective). \n\nIt's simpler to use 1st or 3rd - leave 2nd person to the politicians.
438541
I think you'd have to put it in context to get a decent answer (at least from someone who hasn't read the article to which you refer).  It could mean any number of things depending on the sentences that preceded or followed it.
590496
No proof is needed friend...to really understand using it and knowing of it...you must really believe in it first. for the sights to be set.
139777
this is my humble understanding,Ok, what I understand from the Relevancy; collateral matters. there must be an evidence such a relativity to the fact in issue as to persuade belief in its being or absence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be permissible, except for when it tends to be any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
424989
possibly illogical statement\n\ntransparent means we can see through it
502874
a) voicing your own opinions, and beliveing in what you say
251687
As far as I know, I'm pretty sure it means "to discuss"; hence the word "debate".
1011
people belive there is always a deeper meaning to everything. thats why people record messages then play it back in reverse, if they hear words they belive it's a hidden message that was pourposly put there.
486806
People say "like" a lot to explain the meaning behind what their saying.
673614
According to the dictionary it is [A]
228683
what proof are you looking for? can you specify more details about the actual question?
390505
D is opinion.  The others are statements of facts.
429397
It's a slang expression, mostly used by african- americans, and is short for "sure enough." It's just another way of saying "it sure is."
425177
It means write in properly constructed sentences and paragraphs. Don't set out your answer as a series of bullet points.