defensible

Starting a successful company requires so many good decisions that it's much more defensible than most people think.

Credentialism (even for lawyers and doctors) isn't my favorite thing, but it's defensible by fairly reasonable people.

It's not a defensible business model unless there's some exclusivity agreements with restaurants on the menu.

(Though trust me, you're wrong.) Pretending it means something other than what everyone but you thinks it means isn't defensible.

For a world trying to be more civilized, that's a noble and defensible position.

That being said, Clarkson's xenophobia is hardly any more defensible than his racism.

UPS owns warehouses, trucks, and planes, none of which are very defensible advantages.

Sorry for the confusion, I mentioned Slack as an example as software that replaced something that was not defensible (Hipchat).

Optimizing parameters of that surface may be defensible, or may nor be.

I know that patents typically don't make a business defensible, but in my case I decided to pursue a different business opportunity.

I think it's a rationally defensible position that, in the books case, Google is substituting an democratic process for an enlightened dictatorship.

It's a complex topic, but I think there are many equally defensible views.

As for the "moat", I think the product with the best automation will win at least a defensible niche within the market.

It seems to me very defensible that "how I became an artist" cannot be taught by someone who has only a few years behind.

I encourage him to change his call to action from “say no to preprocessors” to “be conscious of decisions.” It’s much more defensible and realistic!

It's gotten to the point where most of my friends go "ugh, why do you still read that slop?" and my only remotely defensible answer is "because somebody should argue against the horrible shit that gets said." That's not much of a reason.