We are also open to intelligent debate but having
intelligent debate with you, does not seem to be an option, it's your way or the highway.
You can't have
an intelligent debate with an unarmed adversary.
Not exact matches
I think (having) political differences is great... but I think that the best way to deal
with that is through
intelligent, thoughtful, respectful dialogue and
debate.
There was a time when I was, independently, reading Behe and all about
intelligent design and was thoroughly involved in
debating «evolutionists» and arguing
with people accusing them of thinking only within the «trance» of science.
This has to do
with the subject; otherwise this turns into battle of ego inflation and power display, not an
intelligent and reasoned
debate.
«In my own opinion this
debate is fuelled by an overoptimism in what can be achieved
with AI algorithms, as well as an underestimating of how
intelligent people really are.
When you open yourself to a logical discussion, I am sure people will happily
debate with you but it's really just a waste of breath because you have nothing
intelligent to offer to the conversation.
I mean this site / thread probably isn't the place (understatement) but I have delved into this argument more thn the averge joe, and I guarantee someone taking the opposing position in a
debate against me on this subject is going to have their hands full
with the amount of evidence I could put forth on them for the supposition that an
intelligent enity at the very least kick started this thing off.
We could end up
with a fruitful
debate if people gave an
intelligent response, even if the message is still Wenger Out.
However once we establish the facts perhaps we can just get on
with being supporters, have
intelligent debate and get behind the team.
Being able to disagree
with people, even strongly, without seeing them as either stupid or badly motivated is surely a precondition for conducting an
intelligent public
debate.
After the
debate, I feel the only fully credible candidate on that stage was the Libertarian candidate, Warren Redlich, whose comments were thoughtful, courteous and
intelligent, followed by the Green Party candidate, Howie Hawkins whose platform on green growth and development I'm fully in accord
with.
Next time try opening up
with an
intelligent rebuttal and we could have a mature
debate.
This sort of thing is really big business and will creators a chance to have Gwenpool battle it out against Carnage or the Punisher having an
intelligent debate on the Kree Empire
with Captain Marvel.
But, a number of prominent climate sceptics are clearly
intelligent, well - informed and are familiar
with the data, e.g., see this 2009
debate between Prof. S. Fred Singer (a sceptic) and Prof. Bob Watson (former chairman of the IPCC).
When reading this passage originally, I was struck by the observation that
intelligent people who have thought deeply aren't persuaded by
debating with each other.
Justice Hackland commented at para 73 on the accused's demeanor, who appeared «quite naive, immature and inarticulate» despite being an
intelligent physician, and was the «type of person who would «go
with the flow» and avoid
debate or confrontation while a guest in the home of someone who should otherwise have been confronted.»