Theresa May Mark 2

It's about putting a different slant on what Boris said. I'm sure bags would welcome contributions from anyone, but I understand if you think it would be too taxing for you!

Bags slumming it on GN as we can't debate well enough for her.
Not that I mind. I'll stay at your level of understanding, whitewave.

I don't want to, Ana.
It's not about finding a good remainer counter argument, it's about what Boris said.
Anyway, bags specifically asked you to.

I'm sure you can find one, durhamjen, you know all the right places to find a good Remainer counter-argument.

Whoops, Posted too soon.

Last point is that good debate is recognisable, as I said earlier. This is the point we were discussing. You said I wouldn't have seen it in GN political threads because it is debate, thus implying that debate isn't obvious. I maintain it is obvious, and quite different from one-sided activism.

Which is where I started when speaking of Boris Johnson's ability to argue both sides of a case.

The main point is that I didn't call you silly.

The second point is that I called a comment of yours silly.

The third point is about certain kinds of articles, called "leaders" or "leading articles", in broadsheet newspapers being good to read if you want to experience good debating.

There are other sources of good debate, of course, but leader articles are a good place to start. Minibags's English teacher tells her pupils to read some to improve their writing and public speaking skills.

Go on, Ana. Do as bags asks and find another one.

Fraser Nelson said that there has been no economic shock.
Tell that to people like granjura. Tell that to everyone who has booked a holiday over half term or Christmas, whose money has lost nearly 20% in exchange rates.
He was a bit too quick to say that there will be no breakup of the Union.

Boris's article sounds like a show-off student essay, full of references to classics that many people will not understand.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about bags

I thought it was good too, ana. Have you seen any other analyses? It would be interesting to see what someone who disagrees with Nelson has to say.

In short, debate is recognisable is my argument. You were apparently saying it isn't. I find that notion rather mind boggling. Don't you find leader articles in good quality newspapers to be good on debate? I always have (though not all of them, obviously) and it seems school teachers recommend their pupils to read leader articles in order to learn how to construct well debated arguments. Debating is a skill. It shows allright.

Brilliant article, thatbags.

You misunderstood what I was calling silly, ww. I was calling your comment that of course I hadn't seen debate on the political threads because it was debate silly, not you.

I agree, I could have made it clearer. I promise to try harder next time.

My good analysis will not be your's though, bags.
I always think about who has written it. Fraser Nelson is not on my list.

Happy to read another good analysis by someone else if there is one.

In case anyone's actually interested, I think this is a good analysis of Boris's 'secret' argument for Remain by Fraser Nelson.

Yes I agree bags and narrow mindedness often begins with calling people silly

he keeps it well hidden then. I suppose he might one day show us his superior intelligence. You'd have thought we'd have a glimmer by now though.

Don't be silly, ww. I'm perfectly capable of recognising good debating even when I don't agree with the debater. There's very little really good debating on GN political threads. Most of what occurs is narrow-minded activism, not debate.

I think you'll find it probably does! There's much more to Boris than meets the eye!

Of course you haven't noticed it, that's why it's called debate.

Quality?! Hmm Doesn't automatically equate with Johnson does it?

There's also quality of argument to consider. The quality of most political debates on GN is not high.

Really? I haven't noticed it on political threads.

Most grans on here are capable of looking at and arguing on both sides of the debate if they choose .Nothing special about that

Well, it never was a clear cut thing. No complex idea ever is. Those to whom it seemed/seems a simple decision have oversimplified things in their minds. I find it quite impressive that someone called a clown and a buffoon can argue convincingly on both sides of a debate. Not many people can do that.

And, yes, of course I'm aware of those who don't think Boris can do anything convincingly except be a clown and a buffoon, so there's no need for yous to tell me again