The separation of audience into tribes preferring to reinforce their own views with media of similar ideological stripe makes true debate impossible.
I can assure you we are all strong-willed, forceful personalities and the president encourages vigorous debate.
I'd always liked the idea that drama acts at its best as a kind of arena for debate, not just about the thing itself, but also producing aesthetic, stylistic, political and moral discussions.
I emphasize teachers because they are largely left out of the debate. None of the bombastic reports that come from Washington and think tanks telling us what needs to be 'fixed' - I hate such a mechanistic word, as if our schools were automobile engines - ever asks the opinions of teachers.
It is fair to debate how much either bill - Obamacare in 2010, tax reform in 2018 - had or will have an impact on the midterms.
So I'd be quite happy to have a three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with Barack Obama. I'd let him use a teleprompter. I'll just rely on knowledge. We'll do fine.
Anyone who knows me knows how sharp my mind is. I speak at a thousand miles an hour. I'll hold a discussion or a debate with anyone.
I would never want to take TOMS or myself into an issues debate. That's not what we're about. We're about helping people.
Normally, at a debate or a town hall, I would be quick to say to someone, 'That was rude,' or, 'We're going to try to keep it civil here,' or, 'Let's not have personal attacks.'
To try to preemptively shut down debate with name-calling is profoundly un-American and will harm this country.
I know that there is a near unanimous view in Congress that state or local taxes on Internet access would directly deter the ability of consumers to obtain and utilize the Internet. If that is an accepted premise, as it should be, the same concept should apply to the net neutrality debate and its certainty to increase consumer bills.
It's time to elevate the debate in this country and allow the public to access the same neutral, unbiased, nonpartisan information that we in Congress rely on every day.
I just thought it was unconscionable for the Congress to insert itself into this debate. We are particularly unqualified to make that decision and to intrude ourselves into the lives of this family.
There has long been a debate in the aid community and in Africa about how to most effectively help situations of poverty in developing nations and underprivileged communities.
Very often, when you get into a conversation that's more of a debate, you'll pick up that the other person is venting at you. And when someone vents at you, it triggers a reaction. You get defensive and vent back.
The thrill of science is the process. It's a social process. It's a process of collective discovery. It's debate, it's experimentation and it's verification of claims that might be false. It's the greatest foundation for a society.
The whole debate on what food is best for us is complex, ongoing and often controlled by vested interests.
The big debate right now is if Saddam is alive or dead. He's dead, then he's alive, then dead, then alive. It's just confusing. Today they showed videotape, and Saddam was speaking at his own funeral.
Technology has allowed the creation of media echo chambers, so that a person can reinforce, rather than debate, viewpoints.
It is never smart, even in a strong democracy, to declare some debate off limits. In a weakening democracy it is catastrophic.
