Sentences with phrase «whole point of this debate»

The whole point of this debate is this: As we begin to pick up steam in this new generation of gaming, the experiences are becoming more and more lifelike; more and more robust.

Not exact matches

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.

The whole point of having debates is to be able to compare and contrast the priorities, policies...

@momoya» the whole punctuated equilibrium is a red herring since it is a part of the evolutionary model and its finer points are debated within the evolutionary science community..

Surely discussions, debates are the whole point of this are they not?

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!).

The whole point is to encourage discussion and debate about the nature of responsible public engagement, how different folks fare, how much these things matter, and how to accurately measure a policy scholar's value.

The whole point of public debate in a free nation is that reasonable people routinely disagree with one another.

Beyond that, one of the interesting characteristics of this whole debate is that it misses, I think, a crucial point.

«In a sense, that is the whole point of the prize: to encourage public debate,» says Tate Britain director Stephen Deuchar, who chairs the Turner jury.

The whole point of the site is to project the illusion of an equal debate.

I thought the whole point of a «science debate» was to debate science policy.

So far, here in the United States, public debate over climate change has been little more than an endless series of arcane scientific and political talking points tossed back and forth on the Internet between those who believe AGW will destroy the planet and those who believe the whole thing is a massive hoax.

The whole point of the discussion is that there is a debate over what is true.

Just to add to that, they have rules about language and the like, those «rules» only apply to one side of the debate, a whole range of sycophants appear to be able to post denigrating comments they wish as long as they slavishly show their devotion to the current blog talking points.

As a result, while I applaud Nic for finding the error / interesting choice of priors, for me the whole debate misses the point.

It's a peculiarity of our system in the US that we consider and sometimes provide protection for only one type of rivet at a time, each new type debated at great length, although we understand that the ongoing loss of a few rivet here, a few rivets there, ends up — eventually, unpredictably — in a crash; the point of protection is to preserve the integrity of the whole, not the individually charismatic pieces.

But the whole point in this sort of debate is that you don't, except by looking at the 10,002 papers in question.

So the whole exercise is, unfortunately, do your country and the world a huge disservice, particularly when, as DM points out, every denialist crank and roboblogger on the planet is likely to pile on to the comment section leading to an apparent further skewing of the debate toward the dangerously absurd.

Ah, wait until Lord Monckton reminds us all that the point of the whole debate is the well - being of Life on Earth, particularly people.

Their third point is the really important one which goes to the root of what this whole debate is really about: the power and influence of European institutions on UK sovereignty.