Quotes About Debate

In politics, I am indifferent what side she may be of; I think I have arguments that will easily convert her to mine.

When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.

If more government is the answer, then it was a really stupid question.

If you're explaining, you're losing.

A rebuke to Cong. "How could it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150 lawyers whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing & talk by the hour.

The heart of their [Walsingham Witnesses] religion seemed to lie in disproving the religion of others.

Wir werden einen Satz wie Die Welt ist die Selbstverwirklichung Gottes nicht widerlegen, indem wir etwa zu beweisen versuchen: Die Welt ist nicht die Selbstverwirklichung Gottes. Damit würden wir, wo die Metaphysiker den Bock melken, das Sieb unterhalten.

What avail is honour or a sword against a pen?

Rush Limbaugh

Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists, and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians

I begin with the principle that all men are bores. Surely no one will prove himself so great a bore as to contradict me in this.

I can compel no man to agree with my opinions, but at least I can compel him to have an opinion.

When...did it become irrational to dislike religion, any religion, even to dislike it vehemently? When did reason get redescribed as unreason? When were the fairy stories of the superstitious placed above criticism, beyond satire? A religion was not a race. It was an idea, and ideas stood (or fell) because they were strong enough (or too weak) to withstand criticism, not because they were shielded from it. Strong ideas welcomed dissent.

But but but what is the point of giving persons Freedom of Speech,' declaimed Butt the Hoopoe, 'if you then say they must not utilize same? And is not the Power of Speech the greatest Power of all? Then surely it must be exercised to the full?

for to the arguments of great thinkers there is no end, the idea of argument itself being a tool to improve the mind, the sharpest of all tools, born of the love of knowledge, which is to say, philosophy.

Literature is disputed territory.

no doubt much will be said elsewhere by the armies of bigotry and punditry. Let them volley and thunder. I'll speak of bookish things.

I'd rather die fighting over great poets than over gods.

Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, Well, that's not how I choose to think about water.? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

Atheism is just a way of clearing the space for better conversations.

Criticizing a person's ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.

The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism.

Critiquing Islam, critiquing any idea, is not bigotry. "Islamophobia" is a troubled and inherently unhelpful term. Yes, hatred of Muslims by neo-Nazi-style groups does exist, and it is a form of cultural intolerance, but that must never be conflated with the free-speech right to critique Islam. Islam is, after all, an idea; we cannot expect its merits or demerits to be accepted if we cannot openly debate it.

I think it would be extremely helpful if people focused on the ideas being discussed here, rather than on calling you names—which is an easy way to ignore your ideas.