We need a dialogue rather
than a debate along with the understanding everyone's perception is relevant Racial rivalries and referring to folks as «them» and «they» all the time is not appropriate this day and age.
Not exact matches
Whenever I
debate a believer, in a calm rational
debate it usually devolves into the person defending religion getting angry because he or she can not simply answer any question other
than by saying stuff
along the lines of, «well our brains are too small to understand» or «god works in mysterious ways» or my personal favorite «God will judge you for you unbelieving ways».
In contrast to their one - on - one televised
debates, which have consisted largely of Stringer alluding to the «black socks» prostitution scandal that ended Spitzer's career as governor (and Spitzer countering by pointing to the array of entrenched financial interests who
along with Lena Dunham are backing his opponent), the candidates used this forum (co-hosted by Democracy for NYC, Living Liberally, and ACT NOW) to fill out their visions for how the office might be more of a progressive force
than it has been under incumbent John Liu, the longshot Democratic mayoral hopeful.
The scenarios were always real, some better known
than others, and these sessions provoked demanding
debate especially
along the blurred line of what you would do to win, or to ensure fairness.
Today I was featured at the New York Times «Room for
Debate» blog,
along with five others more notable
than me.
-- Obama has also failed to challenge fossilized foes of meaningful action on energy and climate change, from Senator James Inhofe to the many conservative columnists —
along with some liberals — who've distorted the American discourse on climate into an either - or
debate over beliefs little different
than that on abortion or gun rights.
This,
along with wildly exaggerated climate damage scenarios, is needed to justify aggressive short - term interventions such as the Al Gore or Stern proposals.14 Since calculated net benefit results for a two - hundred - year horizon are extremely sensitive to the choice of a discount rate, the
debate over the discount rate is far more
than technical.
Support for the ethanol industry, which blossomed because of a system of tax breaks followed by the fuel mandate, has long been bipartisan, and the current
debate is split more
along regional
than partisan lines.
This is as it should be, although I don't think people just citing the differing conclusions of a paper (eg B&V) rather
than identifying why the differences arise is going to move the
debate along.