Quotes About Debate

Most religious people in America fully embrace science. So the argument that religion has some issue with science applies to a small fraction of those who declare that they are religious. They just happen to be a very vocal fraction, so you got the impression that there are more of them than there actually is.

The battle between free will and listening to the inner voice will remain eternal. Similarly, in the debate over material and spiritual rewards; you cannot have both, as the path to acquire each is different.

The Well taught us how to create a civilized space for debate, speak in our own voices, use our real names, mediate flame wars, and boot trolls. Brand's mantra was, 'You own your own words,' meaning you have the right to say your piece but must also take responsibility for what you say.

When George W. Bush hit the campaign trail in 2000, the precious possession he brought with him from home was his personal feather pillow. The theme of the Bush years was obliviousness. He was famously unavailable for debate and dialogue. He was deaf to countervailing voices. He hit the sack early and always got a good night's sleep.

Like Israel, the U.K. is a democracy, and like Israel, we would never want to muzzle political voices, whatever their opinions - and that is especially true for universities.

There's always been really interesting, diverse black voices talking and arguing and counterpointing.

When I look at the chaotic and volatile debate right now, both in Germany and around the world, my impression and concern is that the daily barrage of proposals and political statements is making markets and consumers even more nervous. Still, Brussels is pressing for a joint European approach.

I used to do volunteer work in poor areas of Cairo, and people would gather their money together to get a satellite dish. You'd see them huddling around and for the first time seeing issues being debated on TV that had never been talked about before. And that is the biggest promoter of democracy you could possibly have.

Our history is that we can very aggressively, if necessary, and openly and democratically discuss our differences. We have a democratic history in which we come together and vote on these things.

The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

You need a debate and a vote on the principles: Do you want more Europe or less Europe? Do you believe we are more efficient with defense and security with Europe, or not? Do you believe we are more efficient for our companies with or without Europe? Those are the questions we have to discuss and push our people to vote on it.

It's not wrong to be skeptical. I was one who participated in the debate on Iraq and voted against the resolution because I was skeptical of the intelligence. But that was based on looking at the facts, analyzing the case in as rational and as logical way as you can, not simply concluding or dismissing facts.

Part of the Brexit debate was about control, having a say over our laws and money and letting politicians stand up for what the people voted for, not signing away our sovereignty.

Politics is a conversation between the contestant and the voter.

Voters deserve - and they indeed expect - a good debate on the issues.

A presidential debate is a job interview. And voters look for certain traits in people applying to be president.

When Gingrich attacked CNN's John King for bringing up his alleged proposal of an open marriage to his second wife, Gingrich accused him of lowering the level of discourse in a presidential debate, suggesting that such a discussion is unworthy of consideration by voters.

I recognize that it often serves competitors best to talk past each other - especially when you are trying to claim the fleeting attentions of voters on a debate stage or on social media. But think how much more clarity we could get if the people who wanted to be president clearly explained why he or she is the better choice.

Pre-poll and exit polls have now become a commercial proposition. No longer are they viewed as means for a debate or means for enriching the voters and improving the quality of political campaigns. They have become yet another way of manipulation.

There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far.

Senator Rubio and I don't agree on everything.

For the most part, Americans speak of culture and politics as if they were two separate realms.

I think punditry serves no purpose.

For me, there's nothing sexier than a woman who can argue me into the ground and outsmart me... a woman who knows her own mind and isn't afraid to speak it.