Sentences with phrase «point of debate in»

Implementing a standardized method for returning lost or stolen crypto has long been a contentious point of debate in the crypto community, for some view any such action as going against the values of Blockchain's supposedly inherently immutable nature.

A point of debate in the Bitcoin community is whether loading data through OP RETURN can negatively affect the performance of the Bitcoin network with respect to its primary goal.

Now this is a point of debate in many cases.

A central point of debate in climate negotiations has been the extent to which established industrialized powers are obliged to act given their outsize contribution to the atmosphere's buildup of greenhouse gases so far.

Given the real estate sector's importance to the economy — it amounts to $ 4 trillion of Canadians» wealth, is equal to roughly seven per cent of GDP and dominates 99 per cent of dinner - party conversations — you might have thought the housing market would be a significant point of debate in the federal election campaign.

Whether this process works exactly as intended is a point of debate in the industry.

Not exact matches

Others point to debates in which he warned of invading Chinese troops.

Pay transparency will be the focus of tonight's PBS debate show, Point Taken, featuring a panel of guests who will clash over whether it could help narrow gaps in pay between genders, racial groups, and socio - economic classes.

Exactly when things went off the rails is subject to debate, but many point to the controversial acquisition of Compaq Computer in 2001 by HP's then - CEO Carly Fiorina as the start of the decline.

The issues reached a point where officials in Oakland, California, debated whether to ban use of the platform by city departments.

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.»

The proposal has generated a great deal of often vitriolic debate over the future of the wheat board, and the C.D. Howe Institute recently weighed in with a report arguing that global grain markets have changed significantly over the past few decades, to the point that the CWB is more often than not a price taker.

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

As the debate has taken on a decidedly Asia focus, with some recent studies and popular media coverage pointing to investors from Asia as one of the drivers of Vancouver's soaring housing prices, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APF Canada) has written a background document aggregating the available facts, outlining similar challenges in other jurisdictions, and raising the question: Is public policy required?

They quickly pointed out that Europe is too large simply to assume that the world can absorb large changes in its capital and trade accounts, and as they debated about the ways global constraints would affect the assumptions about European surpluses most of them quickly decided that either the markets would not permit surpluses of this size, perhaps by bidding up the euro, or the impact of these surpluses would be very negative for the world.

This post about the Suzuki - Pembina report is a case in point: both sides of the debate seemed to think that I was offering aid and succor to the cause of the climate change deniers.

«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.»

Even for the children of Donald Trump, as Clinton pointed out in one primary debate.

The missing piece in the payment debate is the point - of - sale terminal, as it influences what payments a business accepts and, to some extent, what price they pay to have receipts processed.

The point of this post is not to debate whether an investment in Amazon is a good idea.

As the quality of life between East and West slowly merges due to advances in technology, continued urbanization and changing demographics, opportunities across numerous industries will arise which we aim to point out and debate.

While many are willing to concede that they agree with the basic definition of feminism — «belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes» — debate soon moves on to the finer points of specific beliefs and campaigns.

Does anyone else see the humor in the creationists debating their point of view over the Internet (invented by science), filmed on cameras (based on science) in a hall lit by electricity (harnessed by science).

Another crucial debate topic: Are there points of light in a fixed firmament, or are there balls of gas undergoing nuclear fusion grouped into galaxies in an expanding universe.

Because Mr. Colson is prominent in this debate, it is important to point out where I think he is wrong, both in terms of policy and philosophy.

It is what has lead me to my veiw that Atheism as a religion, the passion most Atheist have for their point of view from the start you may not fall in this category but I'm sure you know someone that does.The same applies to Christians that freak out on someone and start forcing their view on others, I see that as wrong also if someone asks or brings the debate to you then by all means debate but why be rude how does it help?

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

i; m not sure i follow your little brother thing, but sharing ideas and a conversation with two differing view points is a debate, and if both parties don't try to kill the other one this is a world of understanding thru conflict, for a differing point of view is in confliction with the others.

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.

«If the Church is ever mentioned» in such debates, he pointed out, «it is in the gratitude expressed that we have not attempted to «appease» the Church or the Church hierarchy, or else in the (unintentionally) patronizing allusion to those who care about the University's relationship to the Church as implicitly conceiving the University along the lines of a seminary.»

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.

There a lot of things in this Universe worthy of debate and should offend us to the point we take action, this is not one of them in my opinion.

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.

The Book of Mormon places the birth of Jesus in Jerusalem, much to the delight of biblical fundamentalists who use such discrepancies to score debating points.

Now of course there are variations in individual presentations on each side, and occasional concessions of specific points provide a certain fluidity to the debate.

Maybe it's the excitement of the sharp point - counterpoint debates of the commentators, or perhaps the flashing «breaking news» graphics that pop up with every little dip in Obama's poll numbers or every slip of the stock market, or perhaps it's the crawling news scroll that announces everything from Lindsey Lohan's most recent relapse to the report of another soldier's death in Iraq.

I see it as a book about the Kingdom of God, and what life looks like when you live into the «other side» of so many of our missing - the - point gender debates in the Church.

The point here is not to debate the relative merits of Hobbes and Locke, but to stress the atomistic individualism of modern political theory in both these forms.

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.

Even more sad is that this article is about real heroes and the point of the article is lost in this religious debate.

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.

Newman pointed me toward the dynamic development of historical debates about dogma, and to the institutional Church as the context and primary agent in these debates.

In the most recent Republican debate, several Republican candidates tried to distinguish themselves from the idealistic Rubio by pointing out that Syria was more peaceful (and less of a source of global terror) when the Assad regime ran the whole country, and that Bashar al - Assad might be the lesser evil compared to ISIS.

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

There is no reason for me to survey the current debate as concerns the substance of the arguments, nor to suggest my own verdict on each of the contested points, as I would do in a setting where time and structure would permit a serious debate in just war terms.

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).

Although the debate over marriage is a clear and current case in point, the dearth of reason is endemic to the public debates of our time.

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.

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.

Most of your assertions are really out there, so much so that I don't see any point in debating it.