The standard of debate was high.
It is full of debates but no solutions.
Or, more to the point, the lack of debate.
Simple, straightforward stuff here, this is the kind of debate that has been played out over and over again in the last few years.
It upholds laws that discriminate against third parties by keeping their candidates off the ballot, out of debates and off the media.
That is currently up for debate.
Besides, this isn't up for debate here.
But that perception is also up for debate.
Only in backward, primitive circles is the president's ethnicity still fodder for debate.
Whether they should be considered terrorists or Well Intentioned Extremists is rather up for debate.
He was fearless -- and peerless -- in debate.
I'd not very good at getting my point across in debates lol.
While both candidates criticised China in debates, Mitt Romney was notably more aggressive.
However, it is certainly open to debate.
Now whether they were good jobs is open to debate, but at least jobs here, not China, India, Vietnam or whatever the globalist flavor of the month is.
Well what exactly can one say? i haven't followed all the leaks and i havent gotten into debates but having justs watched the above link i was shocked.
It broadcasts a news program every 30 minutes along with debates, interviews, or continuous coverage when needed.
At one point, the Democrat quibbled with debate moderator Jim Lehrer who tried to cut him off for going over his allotted time.
We are also not going to be having folks insulting each other during debates.
When the Copyright Bill was introduced in the Senate in August 1905, questions were asked during debate about the origins of the clauses in the Bill.