Sentences with phrase «worse than the debate»

Republicans say their tactics on tax reform are at the very least no worse than the debate over the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, which passed through a Democratic - controlled Congress in 2010.

It's worse than debating religion at times.

Not exact matches

The debate, then, is a lot harder for my side to win; the arguments for sex ordered toward procreation within marriage are much stronger than «man - woman good, man - man / woman - woman bad.»

My friend Drew said the only thing worse than watching the political debates is looking at Facebook after the debates.

Personally, I welcome — this being a debate site - real people with real fan opinions and have no intention of saying less than I mean, since to me that is hypocritical at worst or sitting on the fence at best, in true Alan Smith style (as opposed to fine proper and honest, as they see it, pundits like NEVILLE, CARRAGHER AND SOUNESS, who are above all honest and earn their corn - unlike Walcott - by doing the job they are paid to do.)

Would Wilsere but any worse than Ozil and Giroud's scoring rate is as good as Sanchez — now I guess all of this is open to conjecture and as this is why football creates debate.

I am up for debate, but on his worst day would be no lower than # 2.

The ESPN FC crew debate whether or not Lionel Messi receives less criticism than Cristiano Ronaldo after a bad game.

Yup, instead of really paying attention to the candidates opinions of Dodd Frank and the national debt, we sat around thinking if there was anything worse than celebrating an anniversary at the Presidential Debates.

@PoloHoleSet: I think ColinZwanziger was debating my argument of SA having a «significantly worse record on human rights than Iran», not the fact that they both have crap records on human rights.

This person looked at Miliband in those debates and thought «he's worse than they said he is.»

There seems to be a real debate about if refined is better or worse than unrefined.

Well, here we've got empty calories that will go straight to your belly fat, and that are possibly even WORSE for you than plain old refined sugar (although that's up for debate, but semantics in the big picture).

Still, it's surprising to hear that plant fats in isolation are worse at promoting breast cancer than animal fats in isolation, so I'm left wondering if he mispoke (he did mix up his words a couple of times in this debate).

While much of the debate has focused on inorganic, or «bad,» arsenic, research has shown that organic arsenic, while generally considered less harmful than the inorganic form, may not be as harmless as once thought.

And still it comes, the annual Woody Allen film, and the debate starts again (at least among the few people who still watch them) as to whether the latest is worse than the previous, or slightly better, or merely the same depressing evidence of a director who seems to have forgotten why he made films in the first place.

Arguably that debate has been settled for awhile, but here she gets to embrace an entirely unique challenge — trying to sound like a worse singer than she really is.

The lessons are as follows: Lesson 1 - Intro to climate change Lesson 2 - Climate Change, real or hoax Lesson 3 - The Ice Age Debate Lesson 4 - Worst Case Scenario Lesson 5,6 - Impacts of Climate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use for GCSE.

[1] For a long time, the debate over charter schools has revolved around the simplistic question of whether they are better or worse than traditional public schools.

At the same time, I believe that it is appropriate for states to debate this question, and we should expect some states to pull out, especially once the testing starts, and we — as we expect — if the test scores come out and kids do much worse on these new tests than the old tests, then there's going to be huge political pressure for some other states to pull out and it won't be the end of the world.

Proving that it can always get worse, Wisconsin Senate Republicans have entered the debate on school accountability with a proposal, Senate Bill 1, even weaker than the bill proposed by their counterparts in the state Assembly.

A little over two years ago, when I worked for Writer's Digest, we had some heated debates over how to handle the topic of self - publishing from an editorial perspective, as well as how to deal with the various advertisers in the space, some with worse reputations than others.

Writer and editor Alice Gregory wrote on the other side of the debate, believing that «being good is to feel far more at odds with the world than being bad does.»

An ongoing debate for investors is whether or not the strategy of «buy and hold» is better or worse than trying to time the market.

It would make sense that such a debated topic would garnish more attention if the news is bad rather than good.

Isn't it more interesting to debate what these approaches say about our culture than to judge whether the are good or bad?

George Monbiot wades into the meat - and - climate debate by explaining how «ethically» raised meat is actually worse for the planet than those raised in confined spaces.

Adolph Hitler was no better or worse than Bill Gates although there may be some debate on that.

We see that debating any period less than 32 years is statistically likely to be more productive of heat than light... such that 16 years is the * worst * choice of time interval for debate!

Every (friendly) rebuttal you throw at me is * less * misguided than the previous one, in a flagrant inversion of the quasi-natural law that condemns 99.9 % of human debate to be negative - sum, bad theatre.

Those who point out the problems of making arguments for policy on the back of PR stunts and junk science are labelled as «sceptics» or «deniers», motivated by profit, «ideology» or simple bad - mindedness rather than the desire for a sensible debate about our relationship with the natural environment and concern about development.

What we see operating in Hickman's thinking is the tendency to turn the climate debate into sides, or binary, opposing categories: true and false, good and bad, ideology and science... because ultimately, it's easier to lump «policy sceptics» in with «climate sceptics», and link climate sceptics to «ideology» than it is to deal with the arguments in currency.

However I should point out to you that there are a number of breathless advocates in this debate who have IMHO done far worse than you, without even the wit to realise that they may have overstepped the mark.

What emerged most strongly for me was that, in the current atmosphere of the climate debate, the possibilities of doing «value free» research are greatly reduced: any scientific development which paints a picture of things being better or «worse than we thought» has immediate implications for the debate.

A comment to CB: Your sentence beginning «Rather than assuming the worst about people and their motives...» applies to both sides of this debate, who hold strong and probably mistaken opinions of the other side.

One could do much worse as an introduction to issues surrounding SRM and CDR than read these two posts, and my intervention in this debate is not attempt to show that either post is false.

The consensus enforcers don't even want there to be an index — admitting to an entire axis of perspectives would make the debate far more complicated than the simple matter of right - vs - wrong, good - vs - bad or science - vs - denial that they want it to be.