Sentences with phrase «people debating a point»

Not exact matches

I just wish I could believe that the people pushing the «ethical oil» label for my country's oil were doing it to advance the debate, rather than to score points in it.

We can debate the merits of this study (done by a real estate association of course) all day long (demographic sampling, housing price changes, etc), but the point is, «above average» people generally all own homes and are wealthier, be it 2X wealthier or 40X wealthier than the average renter.

«We'd prefer to just be helping people get from point A to point B, but when the company starts to succeed, in a city, or in a country, or around the world, you start to get brought into more and more of these political debates.»

The links vs. content debate has often times missed the point since you need quality content to get people to link to you.

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.»

History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history... Elaine

I like to debate if people show they have a legitimate point to make, but quacks like cosmos and salero just aren't worth my time

If you pay attention to what I wrote, I accuse both the atheist and the religious person in that «intelligent design» conversation of anthropomorphizing intelligence and debating the point from the wrong perspective in the first place.

And even that is under debate in my head and in our community because I somehow believe that this «Jesus» so embraces a universal comprehension of all things and all people, with no one excluded because of race, religion, sex or politic, that Jesus implodes to the point of disappearing, or, becoming the all in all.

And I think that brings us back to Bostontola's original point: When lay people debate science (like evolution vs. creationism), that should raise red flags.

Asked about the value of the newspaper debates, Charles said that trying «to lead people to salvation by pointing out sins... only brings antagonism and rebellion and shoves them away.

Yes, I was one of the freaks of Christianity who got his kicks studying, debating, and teaching the finer points of theology that few people even knew existed, and fewer cared about.

Historians of the French Revolution have debated the point as to whether or not it was the ideas of the philosophers concerning human rights, equality, justice, democracy, freedom or the interests of the ordinary people pinched in belly and pocketbook that led to the uprising of 1789.

It is a sad day when ministers, priests, and people of good conscious actually have to debate whether or not to speak of the great inequalities in America, and justifiably point to the systems that promote it.

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.

A debate in which the thoughts are not expressed in the way in which they existed in the mind but in the speaking are so pointed that they may strike home in the sharpest way, and moreover without the men that are spoken to being regarded in any way present as persons; a conversation characterized by the need neither to communicate something, nor to learn something, nor to innuence someone, nor to come into connexion with someone, but solely by the desire to have one's own self - reliance confirmed by making the impression that is made, or if it has become unsteady to have it strengthened; a friendly chat in which each regards himself as absolute and legitimate and the other as relativized and questionable; a lovers» talk in which both partners alike enjoy their own glorious soul and their precious experience — what an underworld of faceless spectres of dialogue!

But when we see the people on the other side of the debate as the enemy (by calling them names, labeling them or demeaning their convictions), we miss the point of what «fighting for our faith» is supposed to be about in the first place.

Some people dedicate a lot of time and energy watching Joss Whedon's «Buffy the Vampire Slayer» and debating the finer points of that story, debating what Whedon's intent was with certain images, what philosophy is supported by that storyline.

You above all others have seemed to find a way past most anyone's insecurities to welcome and debate opposing points of view and still come out with an appreciation for that person's contributions.

The churches at this point have a great responsibility not to advocate over-all idealistic solutions but to emphasize the distinctively Christian message that is relevant to these issues, to help their members to see the world without the characteristic American ideological blinders, to challenge many of the prevailing assumptions about the cold war and nuclear armaments, and to encourage the debate on public questions about which most people prefer to be silent.

This is a refreshing point of view from a Christian and my not being a religious person will be able to recall this article when having the gay marriage debate with Christians who are against it for religious reasons.

Mark, I for one am glad that it is debated and that reasonable people use logic on here to prove points.

Sometimes there's debate about the significance and point of the passage, and at other times people agree pretty quickly on the point.

someone that resorts to insults in a debate just confirms that the person resorting to insults can not discuss valid points

There is just no point in debating people who have had lies and stupidity engrained in them from an early age.

Neither the liberals nor their arch critics are sufficiently open «to genuinely pluralistic conversation in which people from very different starting points can debate and sometimes reach conclusions.»

you are maximizing your chances of getting your point across — not so much to the relevant person you are debating with — but to the 1000s of open minded people who read this site.

CNN: Chick - fil - A restaurants become rallying points for supporters Throngs of people weighed in on the Chick - fil - A debate at stores across the United States on Wednesday, buying chicken sandwiches to show their support for the restaurant chain and its president's opposition to same - sex marriage.

But the point of this article is not to engage in the frankly tiresome debates about whether fat people can be healthy (they can).

For now, you can shot your TVs or cry every or other week end... Not sit here picking teams and players to go or stay; we have really nothing, pathetic to be point where article like this have people actually debating on who go or in... What difference that make, an average player replaced by another... Better off promote youngsters.

When people debate Rodgers» legacy at Anfield, his fans will point the 2013/14 season as an incredible achievement — one that, in many ways, would ultimately cost him his job as it was a title challenge that came much earlier than expected; the club were ahead of schedule in terms of building a competitive side, and the emotional turmoil of ultimately losing out on the final day of the season meant there was simply no recovery.

The smoldering wreckage of the contract seems like a truism at this point, something that was both obvious and unavoidable, but there was once a time when smart baseball people had smart baseball debates about Hamilton's future value.

I don't mean to be dicky here because personally I don't really care what Michael Bennett did or didn't do, but what does drive me crazy is when people debate potentially - heated topics like this and don't read up on the most basic of facts, that are easily accessible, before trying to get a point across.

It can be quite distracting (or amusing) to debate the issue with people like Tom who usualy see or choose to interperet something different to real events — but that is not important — the important point is that the refs need to get the decisions right in real time — they are not doing that and the denial of the aid of technology by the PGMO is incomprehensible.

«But this debate gets at the larger point that solutions we often come up with for the poor are informed by the assumptions of people with more money.

The whole point of Have Baby Will Travel is to help people travel with their babies, not to debate whether or not they should... (they should!).

Many people have made good points both for and against the stable futures of Pakistan and India, but increasingly the comments have moved away from political analysis and towards what could be considered to be xenophobia, which is a form of debate that Politics In Spires can not support.

Firstly, while the debate has been driven by young peoples» access to sexual content, the report pointed out that the home filtering systems of the four major ISPs in the UK (BT, Sky, Talk Talk and Virgin) actually provide content filtering for a range of different topics, these being:

«We want to point out that in any discussion with our partners we have to start from a fundamental constitutional principle, the same in the US and Romania, according to which the debates, decisions and votes in the Parliament take place in the name of the sovereignty of the people and can not be the object of any form of pressure,» reads the quoted communiqué issued by the heads of the two Chambers.

But it was a good debate actually: thoughtful, pensive, weighty and full of people seemingly making points of principle.

He seems confused that no - one debated whether it was right or wrong that terrorists murder people after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, seemingly without recognising that it's because this is not a controversial point that it was not debated.

There's a ton of debate over what the phrase means but there is one important point most people agree on (emphasis mine)

Speaking in an exclusive video interview with Ghanapoliticsonline.com, at the time the debate is ongoing on why Mahama lost 2016 elections, he said he has heard people point figures at Montie FM political afternoon show as being part of the reasons why Mahama lost and he personally do agree with those critics.

The Lords voted by 306 to 178 against the reforms after a heated debate in which opponents on all sides of the House pointed out the new system could be used to stop any behaviour «capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person».

Denise Jewell Gee notes that the debate over whether daily fantasy football betting is legal is «besides the point» for those who are trying to help problem gamblers because «they're already seeing people who need help because they've lost control to the game.»

For me this debate rather misses the point of Boris's comments which were not really about history or the EU, but about attempting to create associations between people and institutions he disagrees with and murderous dictators.

«Regardless of the governor's glib talking points, New Yorkers should understand that this deal did not result from meaningful debate and good judgment — it resulted from political expediency — and it will have harmful consequences to people and communities now and for a long time to come,» Donohue said.

It is now clear to anyone familiar with biomedical academic research in the United States that the situation of postdocs in this country needs serious attention; no reasonable person would debate this point.

I'm not debating that there are studies supporting what is reported, I'm merely pointing out that those studies are not the final word simply because there are other studies which contradict or draw other conclusions and more importantly, people who are living contradictions to the «science».

«I am reminded of debates in economics, investing, politics, religion and climate science where a good heuristic is if the person you are reading only points to evidence of one side and never raises or represents the better aspects of the opponents side.