Sentences with phrase «debated point at»

This is a commonly debated point at the moment.

We welcome your ideas on this matter so feel free to add to or debate these points at anytime.

Not exact matches

At one point in the CNN debate, the two candidates actually debated who grew up poorer after a question about raising the minimum wage.

At one point in the debate, Cooper asked the candidates whether they believed in capitalism.

But when it comes to fracking — the oil and gas industry's technique to tap into harder - to - reach fossil fuels — the two have similarly negative yet slightly divergent view points, which were highlighted at the Democratic Presidential Debate in Flint, Michigan, on Sunday night.

The state government has extended its discounted charges at the Utah Point bulk handling facility by another year, to help junior miners continue exporting iron ore, as debate around the sale of the port continues.

Yes, he'd understood the science of DNA testing was incomplete, and that there was vigorous debate over the efficacy (and even potential downside) of population screening, and that it still wasn't clear if the process had reached the point where two different testing companies would even arrive at the same results.

Jim Corridore, CFRA Research equity analyst, and David Dietze, Point View Wealth Management president and chief investment strategist, debate whether the airline sector is a good buy at the moment.

At one point in the debate, Wynne defended her government's spending record by stating that the Ontario government's per - capita program spending was the lowest of any province in the country, to which a surprised Tim Hudak responded, «fair enough.»

But when the two discussed their relationship — Gurwitch is now an investor in DryBar — at Houston's inaugural Circular Summit earlier this month, both agreed it was a debate over this seemingly minor matter that represented a turning point in their relationship.

In his book «Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk» (1996), Peter Bernstein makes a good point about what's at stake in the debate:

At this point, we no longer need to debate the value of a social media presence; brand marketers, bloggers, journalists, and other professionals have instead turned their attention to how best to create and share meaningful multimedia content across all social networks to better connect with their target audience.

Meanwhile, the world is not standing still while Canadians and British Columbians debate these issues, which was a point made by several commentators at the Summit.

I mean if we got back to robust economic growth, maybe we could even talk about it, but at this point in the economy, it just seems crazy to even be debating this.»

The Disruptive Discoveries Journal is a blog aimed at stimulating debate and pointing out opportunities emerging from the ideas discussed above.

«We have the best damn care team in the business — at this point, that's not even up for debate,» Legere said.

Smart and athletic, Alyssa was on the debate team and at one point also captained her soccer team, Gutnick said.

It is not clear to me at all, even if we do get past the issues with mining centralization, segregated witness, lightning networks and hard forks, that Bitcoin (or Bitcoin - like) blockchain - based cryptocurrencies are the way to do it, but I'm open to informed debate on this point.

At that point, it was about masturbation only (no one had made a comparison to homosexuality), so, without much personal stake in the debate, I thought to myself «See, this is why people don't like the answers, not (always) because it doesn't let them do what they want, but because the answers are sometimes very poor indeed.»

At one point in the recent vice presidential debate, the candidates were asked about the role faith has played in their lives.

Despite accepting the invitation at one point, the debate still hasn't happened for reasons I don't understand.

No point in debating whos invisible big brother is bigger or meaner or will or won't punch whom before actually having your big brother show up at the playground.

Right now, anyone with an R or a D next to their name just has to point at an atheist in a debate and cry «Antichrist!»

= > that's a reasonable argument (I disagree with it), but as the amendment only has the affect of reducing the age at which the unborn childs rights are respected, the only point to debate is what age it should be.

I made a point of asking about this at the conference, and theologian Peter Enns offered a brief response, noting that central to this debate is Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 in which Paul draws his famous parallel between Jesus and Adam.

I feel like because Obama had stated at one point all religions lead to heaven, and how he never stated his faith during the debates and Romney did, that the faith most be bold, not hidden.

[Editor's note: At this point in the discussion there was a long debate over the meaning of words, especially the meaning of «perception.»

Note how you jump to verse 8 when you recite the verse, leaving out the key point at verse 6: «If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, «Let us go and serve other gods,» which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers...» Here the person is not entering into a debate but rather asking you to go and serve other gods — that is when when God is saying watch out.

At that point we began to have regular debates disagreements, and found our common ground as well.

It is at this point that reasoned debate begins to decay and epithets are hurled by proponents of redefining marriage with almost invariable predictability.

Now, we can all debate as to why Reverend Graham has taken the actions he has until the cows come home, but, all that is, at this point in time really, is a distraction (no surprise there!).

It is, at least, apparent that the debates about humanitarian intervention by military force in the last decade, about the creation of international criminal tribunals in a number of cases, about the idea of a state's «universal jurisdiction» in cases of violations of the Genocide Convention or other «crimes against humanity,» about how far the global war on terror may proceed without violating the rights of states, and most recently, about the United - States - led use of force against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, have all raised important points of positive and customary international law, and that in every one of these cases the outcome remains unsettled.

I understood the point of your post, my posts are directed at lutek, who I feel is presenting the other side of this debate.

The participants in the abortion debate seem, most of the time, to presuppose that the beliefs (moral / scientific / religious / legal / philosophical) of the pro-choice and pro-life camps are widely divergent at many points.

The question / point / debate really should be «Do patron's really want the money they spend at Chick - fil - A going to those organizations?»

At this point you will understand why I claim Wesley for the process side of this long debate.

At Reformation 21, Carl Trueman enters a debate over the purpose of Protestant seminaries — specifically, whether they ought to make a point of actively sculpting the spiritual lives of their students or whether they should tend to the more mundane goals of imparting knowledge and certifying graduates.

One of the biggest moments in this second GOP debate was Carly Fiorina deftly taking control of the exchange and pointing it toward the macabre activities at Planned Parenthood — and how the top two leaders of the Democratic party are quite content to defend Planned Parenthood and let them go about....

If you would rather generalize to the point of saying «all atheists» do anything at all, then YOU, not «all christians» aren't worth debating.

Make your point, back it up with credible sources, and you'll excel at debate.

It extends to all situations in which a judgment or a decision can be made only at the end of a debate or confrontation between adverse opinions and conflicting points of view.

This diversity is different from other epochs - for example, the time when a Princeton scholasticism dominated the 19th - century Protestant landscape, or even the recent period when neo-orthodoxy was at the least the common reference point for theological debate.

Some lunatics point here, some lunatics point there, but not one ever points to themselves and the anger they stoke relentlessly, which is indeed at the core of all this disgusting debate about who has the right to kill who.

From my perspective the focus of the abortion debate should be sentience; however, even if we are at some point able to determine definitively when during pregnancy fetal sentience begins, we would still be faced with dealing with the ethical issue of law denying women autonomy.

Of course, as I have stated so many times before, I am under no delusion that fishon, and now you, or anyone who seems to take great pleasure in pointing out the «error» in the beliefs of others, cares at all how much impact their attitude plays in the debate.

When he has done this, and the final pages of his book promise such a work at some future date, then further debate will become possible on this point.

The real debate is not should abortion be allowed, it should only be at what point during pregnancy should we consider the embryo human and thus extending it human rights.

This debate about building a mosque near ground zero will have to be looked at in a different perspective, both from the Muslim and non-Muslim point of views.

I saw D'Souza in a few life panel debates and came away shaking my head at how this guy twists view points around to make them fit his agenda.

And these conclusions are (or should be) still relevant to contemporary debates regarding the family, since they make the case that the public, and therefore government, has a legitimate interest in stable families (up to a point, that is, the point at which children have been raised) and therefore in the sexual morality that protects the marital bond.