The idea of what's acceptable and what's shocking, that's where I investigate. I mean, you can't be on 'Top Gear,' where your only argument is that it's all just a joke and anyone who takes offence is an example of political correctness gone mad, and then not accept the counterbalance to that.
The argument that John F. Kennedy was a closet peacenik, ready to give up on what the Vietnamese call the 'American War' upon re-election, received its most farcical treatment in Oliver Stone's 'JFK.'
Australians were unique due to our corals, our apples, our gum trees and our kangaroos.
After an argument, silence may mean acceptance or the continuation of resistance by other means.
I'm not scared of diversity. We have to have debates and win the argument, and if there are amendments that need to be brought up so we find out where the party is, so be it.
A common creation demands a common sacrifice, and perhaps not the least potent argument in favour of a constructed international language is the fact that it is equally foreign, or apparently so, to the traditions of all nationalities.
The moral argument is that we give big business a huge tax break, and why do we do it? To get their jobs.
We must face up to the long-term failures of Britain's approach to immigration and make the argument for an effective, compassionate and liberal alternative.
If I'm in a political argument, I think I can, with reasonable accuracy and without boasting, put the other person's side of the case at least as well as they could. One has to be able to say that in any well-conducted argument.
AIDS is an absolutely tragic disease. The argument about AIDS' being some kind of divine retribution is crap.
Jokes for jokes' sake are kind of meaningless to me. I understand the value of them, but it doesn't speak to me as much. You can lace your argument with jokes, but tell me why you're presenting this argument. What does it mean?
Logical reasoning is an argument which we have with ourselves and which reproduces internally the features of a real argument.
A tactic used by authors of virtually every single book I've ever read that propounds a conspiracy theory is to attack an agency as being part of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, but when this same agency comes up with something favorable to the author's position, the author will cite that same agency as credible support for his argument.
The secular argument, or the liberal argument, is to as much as possible remove taboos so things do not become unmentionable; to let some air into the discussion.
If you feel yourself to be above the mass, speak so as to raise the mass to the height of your argument.
I think the biggest mistake I made was this wretched ability to see both sides of an argument.
The argument in Labour around full membership of the single market is about whether it can be squared with delivering the desire of many of our voters to gain greater control over immigration. This is a proper concern - Labour must stand for those who voted leave every bit as much as we represent those who voted remain.
Few progressives would take issue with the argument that, significant accomplishments notwithstanding, the Obama presidency has been a big disappointment.
Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it.
Bluster, sputter, question, cavil; but be sure your argument be intricate enough to confound the court.