The smarter people I know declined to watch the most recent debate [with Donald Trump].
I'm the only one that can take the debate to Barack Obama and win and be elected.
In the continuing debate over the morality of enhanced interrogation, an essential consideration is often overlooked: intent.
A fool is he that comes to preach or prate, When men with swords their right and wrong debate. [It. , Chi conta i colpi e la dovuta offesa, Mentr' arde la tenzon, misura e pesa?]
Let's start to have a grown up debate in this country about who we are and where we want to go and what kind of country we want to build.
In debate, one randomly was assigned to one side or the other. This had at least one virtue - it made one see that there was more than one side to these complex issues.
Until the late-nineteenth-century the House of Commons maintained a formal ban on the reporting of its debates.
Democrats are making it clear that they intend to use our economic crisis to rush through their longtime liberal goals without public scrutiny or debate. . . . This will increase burdens on taxpayers and take a significant step toward socialized medicine.
Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.
Use "entropy" and you can never lose a debate, von Neumann told Shannon - because no one really knows what "entropy" is.
I have gay friends in my life who are conservative. I have gay friends in my life who are for gay marriage and against gay marriage. I believe in an open and free debate.
Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?
Scientists themselves are of surprisingly little help. They find it difficult to talk of what they do because they tend to assume detailed knowledge is required for generalities to be understood. They find it hard to grasp the concept of the meaning of their work, assuming this to be a debate that takes place at a lower level than the specialized discussions with their colleagues. When they do generalize, - or "popularize" as it is usually called with a noticeable degree of contempt - they tend to reveal a startling philosophical naiveté.
How is it that this debate has been twisted on its head, that somehow those that advocate peace and diplomacy are anti-American?
I can tell you is all nine of the people here [ on debates] would make an infinitely better commander in chief than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
[Science doesn't deal with facts; indeed] fact is an emotion-loaded word for which there is little place in scientific debate.
Our audience holds us to an incredibly high standard of continuity and emotional authenticity. We don't toy with that, but oftentimes we write stories, in order to spark debate. We're very determined to always give the answer. We don't want to leave a lot of things open to debate, at the end of the day.
Democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation.
This is not the age of pamphleteers. It is the age of the engineers. The spark-gap is mightier than the pen. Democracy will not be salvaged by men who talk fluently, debate forcefully and quote aptly.
I think that political parties are fuelling this fear in order to create divisions. The more we bring up fear, the more we neglect real political issues. Political debate in France is crumbling since every single issue is brought to Islam now.