I hear "Let's agree to disagree" when the two debating sides come to an impasse.  Or is the first one to say that admitting defeat?
209302
When one person says "Let's agree to disagree" he is proposing a truce as it were, a resolution in which each side agrees that they will no longer try to convince the other, while continuing to hold opposing opinions.\n\nIf you thinking not winning = losing, then it constitutes a loss.  But I think a peace treaty such is not a loss -- and I certainly think proposing to do so is not a loss.  If the other person does not agree, then the person who proposed it can argue on with equal vigor.  In most casees, it is no sign of weakness to offer a truce.
222334
No!  Because someone always gets hurt.  Basic rule, if you both don't agree, you can't do it.
217240
The opposing side does not have to agree for you to prevail.  A motion is a written request to the Judge that your case is assigned to, explaining your filing difficulties and stressing that you did present timely documents.  If the Judge finds your argument to be fair, he/she may rule that it is in the interest of justice to permit you to proceed.  Also, you should serve the opposing side with a copy of your motion.
65078
The Liberals motto seems to be to disagree with everything in the established order and to agree with everything else. However, they don't seem to be able to make up their minds which is which. The line has to be drawn somewhere without so much in-fighting and bickering. We the people want a well run government which takes care of our needs, not special interest groups,Liberal or Conservative. We pay taxes to run a government which is supposed to serve us. But all I see is the richer becoming richer, the poor more impoverished. Liberal or Conservative, they are taking care of themselves(high salarys which they vote to themselves; paid for by us:free rides) and they are set-up for life while in the background they fight with each other to blind us to the fact that we are being neglected while they live like kings. Its all an elaborate shell game to them.
238079
this is a controversial subject. there are arguments on both sides
348932
Your proof of what? Did I come into the middle of a debate?
448833
THANK YOU!!!  Finally, something we both agree on!!  I understand both sides stating their opinions, but at what point will everybody realize that fighting and calling each other names is getting us nowhere and that in the end, no matter the outcome both sides will be unhappy with the results??!!  Lets act like adults and discuss solutions, we all know the problem already, why keep making it bigger??!!
100826
I don't think we get more opinions in such a situation, on the contrary even with an administration that welcomes debate, not the case today, input from different minded people stimulates more thought. \n(Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's new book "A Team of Rivals" details Lincoln's success at bringing opposing ideas to the table. It's a great read)\n\nCertainly our experience in the last five years should make us ponder this.  Until a month ago this Congress was so reluctant to voice any disagreement, which seems to stem from fear, intimidation and bribery.   "Don't vote with us and we'll fund and support primary opponents" does not encourage a free exchange of ideas.  Bills are held forever for arm twisting. Votes change. The next appropriations bill has bridges to nowhere, and outrageous spending for community centers. This happened in the past, but never in my lifetime to such an extent.  The national debt and the instances of "earmarks", formerly "pork",  are outrageous.\n\n"Quicker" means more deceit. \nThis week a Republican representative on C-SPAN was telling about voluminous bills being placed on desks in the middle of the night to be voted on the next day with absolutely no time for review. \n\nWe went to war far to 'quick' for me.\n\nI think we should at least elect a Congress in 2006 that will constrain the President's outrageous spending, and quick actions.  That means a Democrat majority.
570653
i like to use a quote or a short story that deals with the issue.  it gives you some evidence at the very beginning, and it depending on the quote, it can give you a very powerful introduction, which is exactly what you want in a debate.
220556
Not many times will you find me agreeing with you over something like this. \nBut some thing like this seems to have been put out before. Only thing i can see wrong with it. \nIs that you will always find that one side will never agree. \nno matter how good any solution is. \nMy idea would be to get all the coalition forces out of there. \nArm all sides Equally let them sort it out once and for all with NO outside help from ANY other country. \nLast group standing gets the Country. \nAnd the rest of the world accepts them no matter who has won.
251687
As far as I know, I'm pretty sure it means "to discuss"; hence the word "debate".
206348
Not forcibly, no, but I reserve the right to both disagree with their beliefs and try to change their minds on certain things (not that this usually does any good.)  For example, I think I'm perfectly justified in thinking that fundamentalist Muslims are dead wrong in thinking that we are the Great Satan.  I wish with all my heart that they didn't feel that way, and if they're willing to listen, I'd do anything in my power to try to convince them that they're wrong.  However, I grant them the right to think that we're the Great Satan and to try to convice me that my beliefs are wrong.  \n\nI understand what you're saying, and I agree that it's usually a moot point to try to change people's personal beliefs...Discussion and healthy debate is great, but all participants have to be willing to be a part of the debate.    Like in just about all other situations these days, people need to stop both making bigger debates personal and stop taking everything personally.  If anyone figures out how to do this, let me know.
614397
Why do all partisans think b!tching and whining about how bad the other side is solves anything? Both sides are full of sh!t; you want results, quit the pissing contest..
467363
Ah, what's to debate...?\n\n"It is unnecessary to present both sides of an issue when one side is obviously a load of crap." - Bill Maher
97826
Working on the basis of your question, you best answer will be one that agrees with you.\nBut if you are pointing it out because you disagree with this practice then your best answer will be one that disagrees with you.\nBut then you would be condoning the very practice you disagree with.\n\nWell, I will be waiting for your decision with baited breath!
163648
“Quoad ultra denied” is broadly translated as “Everything else in the other side’s pleadings is completely untrue.”\n\nIt is just a form thing.  It doesn't actually mean anything that you need to pay attention to.
433140
i don't pick sides, just tell them that they are both your friend, and you are staying out of this argument... so just stay out of it... thats the best advice, don't choose.