Sentences with phrase «for debate like»

its an issue that of course is up for debate like any other, but for some reason it has more emotive power than most others too — why is that?

Not exact matches

To help producers share information, they've started an open - source project and wiki page where farmers trade tips on selecting the best crickets for breeding and debate the merits of «gut - loading» insects with foods like apples and honey to give them a sweeter finish.

But privately, officials debated whether this was a proper use of the legal defense fund, which was originally intended to help pay for things like vote recounts, according to news reports.

Kimmel has since actively railed against Obamacare repeal efforts, arguing that various proposals being debated by the law's opponents would gut protections for people like Billy born with pre-existing conditions, either by rolling back Obamacare's mandated insurance benefits for certain health conditions or allowing states to set up rules that would let insurers charge sick people more for their coverage.

There is debate within the medical community about what an optimal blood pressure target is, especially for older people like Trump, and how aggressively medications should be used to lower blood pressure to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke.

On the other side of the debate, we have the ISPs like AT&T and Comcast, who argue that a re-classification of broadband providers the Internet under Title II (which was originally written for old phone networks) by the FCC is both out - of - date and without legal merit.

We've debated the ethics of 3D - printing guns before, so this isn't really a new subject, especially for the «maker» community, which has generally addressed the gun - printing issue by distancing itself as much as possible from the hardcore, gun - printing evangelists like DEFCAD.

Whereas Instagram is for curated, pretty photos, Facebook is for family - friends broadcast and permanence, Twitter is like the world's debating chamber, Whatsapp is a 21st century rendition of SMS, and Snapchat is a good idea badly executed.

Smith often compares his company to CNN, and in many ways Vice has become the equivalent for many younger viewers who no longer watch traditional television, especially when it uses stale old formats like panels of aging white men debating politics.

This seems like a debate for the third quarter, not now, and that the market still has room to go up.

It's like blaming the media for incessantly covering Donald Trump and then watching the ratings when Donald Trump is at a debate and being surprised that the media gives him so much coverage.

At the very least, it seems like a good bet to top the previous ratings record for presidential debates, set in 1980, when 80.2 million people tuned in to watch the first debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

He has repeatedly name checked countries like Denmark and Sweden in interviews and debates, arguing that we should copy policies like mandatory paid leave for new parents and free healthcare and college education to improve the economic lives of ordinary Americans.

This seems to be like a debate for the third quarter.

Mr. Trump has already broken with tradition by singling out companies for criticism, like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, automakers and news organizations, sometimes causing gyrations in their stock prices and prompting debates about whether corporations would tailor their conduct to suit a bellicose president.

«Disputed» makes it sound like a bar debate about the NBA's MVP, not «story made up from whole cloth,» even though Facebook's own explainer says it uses the «disputed» tag for «fake» stories.

Schaffner says that before Obama's election, political scientists believed that «when candidates used language during a campaign, or during a debate, that was explicitly racist, voters would indicate that they liked that candidate less and were less likely to vote for them.

As President Donald Trump takes the country closer to an economic nationalism that calls for tearing up agreements like NAFTA and the Trans - Pacific Partnership, potentially enacting higher tariffs on imports and obsessing over trade deficits, it is worth reflecting on a similar debate that inflamed the electorate 130 years ago.

Listening to the hoopleheads debate the intrinsic value of Gold or lack thereof is like watching professional soccer — there will only be one point made for every 27 hours or so worth of back - and - forth tedium.

In response to the ongoing debate over H.R. 4015 — a bill that was submitted to the U.S. Senate for consideration after approval by the House of Representatives on December 21, 2017 — Glass Lewis would like to -LSB-...]

Economic mavericks like Max Keiser, financial critics like Steve Keen and mainstream economists like Paul Krugman are debating financial repression, monetary and fiscal intervention or allowing for more free markets and more real capitalism.

But it has been disappointing in that the kind of genetic variation it detects has turned out to explain surprisingly little of the genetic links to most diseases... One issue of debate among researchers is whether, despite the prospect of diminishing returns, to continue with the genomewide studies, which cost many millions of dollars apiece, or switch to a new approach like decoding the entire genomes of individual patients.The unexpected impasse also affects companies that offer personal genomic information and that had assumed they could inform customers of their genetic risk for common diseases, based on researchers» discoveries...

We debated about the pros and cons and in the end god was like, «Totally vote for perry or else you're going to hel.l.

I'm not trying to sound like everything is relative, but I am saying these are issues that have been debated for thousands of years, and the arguments on both sides of the coin are really strong.

In the real world, we define fallacies for debate purposes and validating arguments which is not happening here in the forums with hateful trolls like you.

For me anyway, these are the reasons to debate web sites like this, not because of the site itself, but because of the issues it raises.

The lesson of this debating season is that if you have a plausible explanation for our circumstances, have proposals that connect to people's lives, and can defend your proposals, people tend to like it.

As a result, religious voices like those of philosophers Alastair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Paul Ricoeur, and John Milbank are closer to the heart of academic debate than they have been for several generations.

Scholasticism Theology moved from the monastery to the university Western theology is an intellectual discipline rather than a mystical pursuit Western theology is over-systematized Western Theology is systematized, based on a legal model rather than a philosophical model Western theologians debate like lawyers, not like rabbis Reformation Catholic reformers were excommunicated and formed Protestant churches Western churches become guarantors of theological schools of thought Western church membership is often contingent on fine points of doctrine Some western Christians believe that definite beliefs are incompatible with tolerance The atmosphere arose in which anyone could start a church The legal model for western theology intensifies despite the rediscovery of the East

like former leader... we too have kept open house and had people live with us long and short term for nearly all our married life... we've had debate, argument, sadness, hilarity... even had someone with a disturbing psychosis... not at one stage have we felt the need to make any rules... that would almost be like copping out of relationship.

for the way you drive your decisions like a stake into the landscape of debates,

I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles of Peter and Paul, about the meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really mean when we talk about «biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.

For the sake of a hearty debate, That's like calling Latinos white or Black... Anyway..

You say you don't know gods will because to try and think like god is too hard (which for the record I think is a cop out in any debate or discussion about god that I understand you really believe it and are not trying to duck around a question, but to say I don't know, god is too powerful to understand sort of halts discussion from there)

You say you don't know gods will because to try and think like god is too hard (which for the record I think is a cop out in any debate or discussion about god that I understand you really believe it and are not trying to duck around a question, but to say I don't know, god is too powerful to understand sort of halts discussion from there) but you also are saying to speak with him on a daily basis.

In general, based on the 2003 interview, it doesn't look like Santorum knows how to talk or think about this issue very well; he doesn't, for example, appear to know how to distinguish the three levels of the right to privacy debate: a) the natural rights level, b) the Constitutional level, and c) the plain - old law level, state and federal.

Steve... I think we're floggin» a dead horse here, but for what it's worth, understand that I'm not trying to convince you to think like I do, rather I wd hope that room wd be made for many theological differences.To think discuss and debate theology is well supported by the New Testament and history, and is perfectly within the bounds of what it means to engage our minds with the subject at hand.Theologians and biblical scholars have done this very thing for centuries, revealing a plethora of opinion on the evolving world of biblical studies.Many capable authors have written and debated the common themes as well as the differences between Paul, John, Jesus, the synoptics, etc..

@Scott, I'll be happy to go into a long conversation about the various intricacies of my personal beliefs if you'd like and we can debate the value of divine plans: but for now I just want to say thank you.

In most cases they have overcome both political fragmentation and government overload by replacing their old governmental bureaucracies with an innovative and effective form of governance: coalitions (composed of business, government, nonprofits, universities, neighborhood and minority associations, and religious groups) that develop a cooperative agenda to improve the city and that assume many of the city government's traditional functions (economic development, long - term planning, educational reform, even care of the homeless), and that also operate like political parties of yore (providing the point of access for new groups and a public realm for discourse, debate, and negotiation concerning matters of the common good).

like the GOP debate when the audience booed Paul for citing the golden rule for foreign policy... you are all a bunch of hypocrites

We have too many sources for the 1900's material to not be credible, but that doesn't mean that historians don't debate the events like nobody's business.

For most in the scientific community, the debate was never truly about whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells would be the most useful therapeutically or whether we could obtain embryonic - like stem cells without destroying embryos.

Go for the 100th repeat of the debate about whether we have evidence or not if you feel like it, but this is definitely not a new topic.

that our bishops be urged to form a panel of highly qualified men and women for handling any future incidents of this sort (they should not only be well informed but well used to debating), and also for seeing in a more general way that the Catholic case is properly presented or defended in the media: one thinks for instance of men like Professors Peter Hodgson and John Haldane or Father Aidan Nichols); 3.

Sometimes it's more like a debate than an interview, but I get the sense that he enjoys talking through theological issues that once mattered to him with someone for whom they still matter.

But if your sole objection is that you don't like the way I've spoken in serious terms and tried to have a frank debate, then heck Bob, I don't apologise for that.

Are you going to actually stand your ground and debate what constitutes orthodoxy within the Christian tradition, and whether or not a belief in Incarnation is part of that, or are you just going to stand at a distance and * observe * patterns within Reformed theology [like, gosh, a concern for truth!

In culture wars, as in philosophical debate, words are often like towns along the battle front: they offer a strategic position and must be fought for and defended, and not relinquished as soon as the enemy advances.

We must also be careful not to oversimplify marginal positions that, in our time, may owe more to the legacy of German scholars like Julius Wellhausen than they do to the Islamic tradition, which, for example, debated not whether Ezra was «a major villain» but whether he was a prophet — and therefore infallible according to Islamic theology — or a righteous Israelite.

CNN: My Take: Hard truths matter; I'm Mormon, and I'm voting for Obama There are two moments and two moments only that made my soul sit upright during Tuesday night's presidential debate: President Obama, speaking about the loss of manufacturing jobs to low - wage economies like China: «There are some jobs that are not coming back.»