Sentences with phrase «debate over things»

A little healthy debate over things as simple as terminology can be a huge contributor to company culture, and help improve understanding of the very concepts language exists to describe.

I say mostly, because there's always room for improvement, and there are still debates over things like the pros and cons of physical vs digital and whether DLC and patches have really made gaming better, or why it's often difficult to enjoy multiplayer in the same room as someone else.

Not exact matches

As the debate rages over who benefits from the Affordable Care Act, one thing is becoming clear: The controversial program is a dream come true for rip - off artists.

Gun makers are again the center of a national debate over how to put an end to mass shootings, and their stocks are trading like things are different this time.

Otherwise, you will debate whether you should do it now or there were too many issues with doing it, or there are other more pleasurable and exciting things to do over this boring task.

And while the coming debate over the guaranteed income will inevitably focus on political and economic viability, in the end the authors believe we will embrace it, as we embraced those others, because it is the right thing to do.

The killings in Florida have also revived the debate over whether teachers should be allowed to carry guns in schools — an idea DeVos, while careful not to outright endorse it, said in an interview last week with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt should «be part of the broader, more robust conversation about how can we avoid these things in the future.»

I pray to whichever holy name (God, Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, etc.) suits the ONE Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent being that ignorance is wiped away from our species and we become a closer, more loving, peaceful creature and that we realize how much time we waste and how much further we push our fellow neighbor and brother under God, regardless of creed, away debating over who's God is better and discover the error of our ways before we destroy each other... before it's too late, because The End is Nigh!!!!! LOL!!!!! Really though, isn't the world full of enough tragedy, and aren't their so many more important things that need our energy and attention like the innocent children in Pakistan dying from diseases from the flood or the homeless children in our own country, or the lack of education, which is exactly what leads to this kind of debate?

It is a quite natural and healthy thing, he writes, that our society should be involved in debates over what is obscene.

We will have any debate you would like over things you are willing to actually accept when you lose.

You know — every time I see religion debated on a public forum, the whole thing is an exercise in mental futility as both the atheists and even some of the Christians make the same type of mistakes over and over again and just yell back and forth at each other.

I have debated a few of my friends from the past over some of these things with very little sucess.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Readers of First Things should by now be well - acquainted with the heated national debate - in part inspired by these very pages - over the role and legitimacy of the modern Supreme Court, armed with the power of judicial review, in a country that proclaims itself to be self - governing.

The entire book is a giant philosophical debate over why bad things happen to good people.

Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So the one thing the debate showed last night is that Newt won't be touched significantly by any of the existing evidence about his interesting past — including how he's been earning his living over the last decacde — any time soon.

The thing is, I think once we make that shift, the «debate» is over because our lives stand as a testament to the fact that being gay isn't harmful, or, to put it a better way, isn't any less beneficial than being straight.

In an effort to fix this mess, we have a few suggestions of moderators who should take over for the next presidential debates — to make things much more interesting.

The interesting thing about this whole debate is how our ideas of how we interpret what the Bible says about what hell would be like have changed over time.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Romans: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

When the churches can no longer avoid controversy by smoothing things over, the positions that emerge in debate have little relation to the Christian faith.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.»

Among many other things, the struggle for the doctrine of the Trinity was a debate over the meaning of the Bible.

The kids were completely disinterested in the Chai Pumpkin Bread, unsurprisingly, and as of late I haven't been baking things that Juliet particularly likes, so I offered to make her something she'd like, and after some waffling over the cookies vs. muffins debate, she made her wishes known: Lemon Poppy Seed Muffins, please.

I truly don't know where you stand on the debate over the knee thing but if you're going to put down info, don't be comparing apples to oranges like you did and don't be saying that there are only 5 teams he's qualified to play for when it's more like 19 assuming that you're even remotely accurate that he couldn't be playing one of the safety positions in a 3 - 4.

I even thought top clubs were in for him.Some three or 2 seasons back many here were debating why he should be our main striker.As soon as you mention any other strikers name people would come out with stats and many things defending him.Even Wenger has defended him blindly in the past.People say Wenger's stubborn yeah.But don't we know that there's a reason why everything happens?Honestly speaking he's the reason why Arsene Wenger has failed to sign a top notch striker because he still believes in him.The funny thing is we signed Welbeck at that time who to me did nothing before to be the main man here.People keep saying Welbeck is hardworking and that he works his socks off.But the question is was that our reason for signing him.Welbeck being signed to challenge Giroud tells me a lot about Giroud's quality.Even Walcott (no offence to him) who has zero CF qualities was even chosen over him for a string of games and all in all I think he did well but has too many defeciencies for that role.We've compromised as a club and it'll come back to bite us.

Legacies are a funny thing, which is why there has been so much debate over this year's Hall of Fame class, which was notable especially for who didn't get in.

First let me laugh hahahahaha.Secondly, let me give credit where it is due and say that that was a great finish from Giroud.Thirdly, do you know that if Giroud did not score today he would have been criticized very badly you know why because he does a lot of things wrongly when he does not score but when he scores everyone just ignores.How many people were actually focused on him after he scored you would realize that he breaks up a lot of attacks.Its a pity peeps are not being honest about him he is French and he is a very nice guy so i understand however.Lastly, it has been about 3 seasons or so that he has been here and people are still debating over him.Make up your mind i made mine up from day one that he arrived and realized he was awful however great classy goal.

There were debates to be had over whether those plans were the right way to go about things, but they were something for fans to get behind.

Sometimes I think that parenting back in ancient times must have been simultaneously harder and easier than it is now, mostly because there was a prescribed way to do things back then; no debate over organic veggies, screen time, or how fucked up your kid was going to turn out if you put them on a naughty step.

«I had to shake it up a little bit because I heard there is a debate going on in Pennsylvania over whether most schools condemn sweets, cakes, cookies, that type of thing,» Palin said.

I've read over and over again (not on this blog but on other message boards debating the same issue) that these allergy kids need to understand that they are not the centre of the universe and that they will grow up feeling entitled if everyone changes things to protect them.

Under neo-liberalism it's become quite clear that we can drown in proceduralism — there's no problem keeping people busy with paperwork and accountability, or in the case of deliberative democrats for example, we can have important debates about how to redraw and then defend the borders of a democratic country legitimately — but if all those things take up all our time, we'll look up from our papers and our borders one day, and see that there isn't anything left to fight over.

Things got heated on the New York State Senate floor this week over a debate on bills that majority party Republicans say will improve school safety.

Things got ugly last night on the Senate floor during the debate over the latest round of budget extenders — here's Sen. John DeFrancisco referring to Democrats as «patsies.»

«The only thing I can see is that the reality and the responsibility are sobering,» Paul Gioia, who served as chairman of the state Public Service Commission during much of the debate over Shoreham, told the New York Times in 1989.

Coalition blues We're going to be going into the next election saying «coalition's a terrible thing, we want to have an overall majority», but actually we want to stand on our record of what's happened over the last five years, so it's going to be slightly paradoxical in that way — the debate on the good or ills of coalition... I have to say both at the time, and particularly now with hindsight, I think we should've had a second election in 2010.

Things lightened up a bit for him when he was able to show off his basketball knowledge when addressed by a Phoenix Suns fan (me neither) and he managed to get a few crafty kicks in the PM's shins, calling on Cameron to stop «ducking and diving» on the TV election debates question and agree to them, something analysed here by George Eaton over at the New Statesman, and mocking the PM for «flouncing out of summits and that kind of thing» when asked about Europe.

Funnilly enough Oberon Im currently in a public debate with a Labour Councillor locally about a list of 25 «good» things that Labour are responsible for... I came up with over 50 bad things Labour are responsible for.

And, that's a good thing for a party who has drawn lots and lots of negative attention over the past few weeks — from the still sluggish economy to the debate over the proposed New York City Islamic center to the pending House ethics trials for Reps. Charlie Rangel (D - N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D - Calif.).

If she could take one thing back, Dr. Tisch said, it would be having rolled out the standards and the teacher evaluation system at the same time, «because I think the debate over how to evaluate a teacher contaminated the more important work.»

If anyone has dipped into the debate on the Alternative Vote over the last three weeks, they will probably have picked up one thing: the No campaign say AV will cost # 250 million, the Yes campaign disagree.

There is a real diversity of informed opinion on how important climate change is going to be to various things that affect humans, and there is a diversity of opinion on how to address this problem, but the debate over human - induced climate change is over.

If you look at the debate over women's suffrage of 1918, you find congressmen putting in the Congressional record, things like, «My wife says she doesn't want to vote and that settles it for me.»

In the meantime, watching the evolution of the debate over hurricanes and climate change, several things are clear.

Food experts and nutritionists have disagreed about a lot of things over the years — the role of fat, the benefits and drawbacks of animal protein — but amidst these debates, they have always been able to agree on at least one thing: MORE PLANTS = GOOD.

(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death [spiritual death,.

The only adjustment — other than drinking their beers a lot faster — is that their conversations turn from stories of the past to debates about what exactly they should call the things that have taken over Newton Haven.