Quotes About Debates

When you campaign and have to participate in so many debates just to the win the nomination of your party, you've had a lot of practice. You get to figure out as you go from one debate to another where you made your mistakes. By the time you get to the big debate you're pretty polished.

I can't ever remember sitting around and saying, 'gosh let's hurry up and get these debates going, that'll win it for me.' Nope.

I remember endless Apple v. Windows debates in the early '90s when I was in college. Macs were better machines, everyone said; the whole Office thing was a huge pain. It was difficult to transfer files between operating systems, and generally speaking, if you wanted to do Office stuff, you needed a Windows machine.

There's no question that many factors contribute to voters' perceptions about debates and who wins and who loses.

Summer vacation is a topic seldom mentioned in American educational debates. It is considered a permanent and inviolate feature of school life, like high school football or the senior prom.

If there was one fact that sent me hurtling off to write 'Politics Lost,' it was when I learned that John Kerry had focus-grouped Abu Ghraib. We knew about the Justice Department memo in June of 2004, and Kerry didn't raise that in any one of his three debates with George Bush.

When public leaders turn public debates into words of war - 'enemies' 'go to hell' 'attack' - they are enabling the edgiest of their followers to take things into their hands, and unfortunately, some of them do.

Men's arguments often prove nothing but their wishes.

Imams must ridicule Caliphate fantasies. Exchange programmes between Muslim-only schools and non-Muslim-majority schools should be initiated. Community-based debates around these themes must no longer be shut down from fear of offence.

When the presidential debates are on, I'll watch that like it's the Super Bowl. I actually thoroughly enjoy that. I always have.

What intrigued me most was not the technology as such but the questions about the human goods, the fundamental human values and virtues that are raised by debates over biotechnology.

Authoritarianism appeals, simply, to people who cannot tolerate complexity: there is nothing intrinsically "left-wing" or "right-wing" about this instinct at all. It is anti-pluralist. It is suspicious of people with different ideas. It is allergic to fierce debates. Whether those who have it ultimately derive their politics from Marxism or nationalism is irrelevant. It is a frame of mind, not a set of ideas.

An early attempt to give expression to a modern demos with access to political life occurred in the so-called Putney debates during the English civil wars

In contrast to the constitution-writing convention of 1787 in Philadelphia where there would be many delegates representative of the modern elites but none from the demos,23 at Putney the lower classes and the poor were present and democratic arguments were advanced. Those debates also saw the appearance of a new and self-conscious presence defending the political hegemony of nascent capitalists.24

I like to think I've changed the centre of gravity on lots of national debates.

The real dynamic is that when Greens are in the debates, Conservatives don't do as well.

Nobody ever won an election by spitting at his political opponents.

Political debates in the United States can be untethered from facts, but threats to life focus minds on reality.

Moreover, environmental health at the local level has become narrowly focused, very much defined around regulations and the attendant regulatory debates.

That a literature in our time is living is shown in that way that it debates problems.

Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time.

The Executive has got to have a freer hand and be able to move quick in an emergency, and not be tied down by a lot of dumb shyster-lawyer congressmen taking months to shoot off their mouths in debates.

Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.

During the debates for mayor, I was continually pressed on my position on the policing procedure known as 'stop and frisk' - which is actually in law enforcement known as 'stop, question and frisk' - and why I believed that, if used properly, it could reduce crime without infringing on personal liberties and human rights.