Quotes About Debate

When you've got people taking opposite positions just to create a debate, viewers can see through it.

My own experience is that the best outcomes are reached when opposing viewpoints are clearly and strongly presented before decisions are made.

Reducing everything immediately to good and evil is bad history - not only because it isn't true, but because reductionism is unpersuasive; it is boring. Good history, on the other hand, demands that one talk socratically - that one can present alternate viewpoints, not strawman arguments.

When I spend a lot of time reading, discussing, or thinking about an area, I'll often really appreciate why a strong viewpoint is true and come to very firm conclusions. But if I am later exposed to a strong opposing view, I frequently find this countervailing view persuasive as well.

Technology has allowed the creation of media echo chambers, so that a person can reinforce, rather than debate, viewpoints.

One thing about liberals: It doesn't even occur to them that there is another side to an argument. They are so convinced of the righteousness of their own position that it doesn't dawn on them that a reasonable person might have a different viewpoint.

The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.

Discussing and dissecting opposing viewpoints with others on Twitter opened up a whole new way of thinking for me.

University students should rightly be exposed to a plurality of viewpoints as part of their intellectual growth, rather attending the 'flock of sheep association of like-minded individuals.'

Debate and divergence of views can only enrich our history and culture.

What is illiberal is not persuasion but imposition of one's views.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views.

Dialogue between people of differing views is critical for fostering understanding in a democracy.

Immigration in America is a highly polarized issue and there are passionate views on both sides.

We are losing sight of civility in government and politics. Debate and dialogue is taking a back seat to the politics of destruction and anger and control. Dogma has replaced thoughtful discussion between people of differing views.

In a democratic party, where internal democracy is alive, there are bound to be different views.

Free speech is carelessly tossed to one side in order to silence views and people that liberals label as intolerant.

It should simply be an empirical matter whether the climate is changing or not and whether we're responsible. But the various sides of the debate have now become so tribal that it's no longer a matter of changing our views as more information comes in.

It's always interesting to bring scientists together, because they typically have very polarized views.

The issue of the environment as seen by Pope Francis is not a matter of purely scientific or, indeed, theological debate: it involves economic and political views on how the world's poor can be brought out of poverty while protecting the environment.

We should not live in fear, we should all enjoy being able to express our views freely and openly, challenge each other on issues.

You should protest about the views of people you disagree with over major moral issues, and argue them down, but you should not try to silence them, however repugnant you find them. That is the bitter pill free speech requires us to swallow.

If our country is to reach a workable solution to the abortion issue, the Democratic party must be open to and tolerant of opposing views.

People have different views of how you deal with different issues in literature, and, frankly, long may it last that there is a range of views.