A Quote by Regina Brett

You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree. — © Regina Brett
You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, I would say.
I'm used to politics at an international level: people put together an argument and, even if you vehemently disagree with them, well, you can recognise it's an argument and respond.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, in the band, I would say.
If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with
After 45 years of marriage, when I have an argument with my wife, if we don't agree, we do what she wants. But, when we agree, we do what I want!
Friends don't always agree on things. I think you can disagree without being venomous about it. You don't stop being friends just because you disagree.
Never Get Into An Argument With A Customer. If You Win The Argument You Will Almost Invariably Lose The Sale. And I Don't Like Your Chances For A Sale If You Lose The Argument Either.
Whether people agree or disagree with the decisions an actor makes after their Disney tenure, every alum has a clear vision of how they want their career to pan out.
The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree - and thus keeps the road open to man's most valuable attribute: the creative mind.
For a lot of readers these days, a book is something you have to agree or disagree with. But you can't agree with a novel. For my generation, it was assumed that a book is a dramatic thing, that the eye of the book is not telling you what to think.
You can be happy, or you can be right. If you want to be part of a couple and win every argument, you're in trouble.
Additional problems are the offspring of poor decisions. When inquiry and advocacy are combined, the goal is no longer 'to win the argument', but to find the best argument.
Any comprehensive doctrine, religious or secular, can be introduced into any political argument at any time, but I argue that people who do this should also present what they believe are public reasons for their argument. So their opinion is no longer just that of one particular party, but an opinion that all members of a society might reasonably agree to, not necessarily that they would agree to. What's important is that people give the kinds of reasons that can be understood and appraised apart from their particular comprehensive doctrines.
Thinking is not to agree or disagree. That's voting.
Where I agree with the president, I'll state that I agree with the president. Where I disagree, I'll state that I disagree.
We can agree to disagree, but we don’t need to be disagreeable.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!