Remember Move From Argument Type A To Argument Type B? This is different.

P1 and P1 not only disagree about various things, they are darned annoyed with each other.

The annoyance comes to a head over topic T. Broadly speaking, P1 is for T and P2 is against T.

P1 and P2 are by now so pissed off with each other that they automatically disagree with the last thing the person said, whether about T or not, whether attempting to find common ground or not.

The answer is a Tat For Tit session.

Rules

• P1 must start.
• No disagreement about which person is P1 will be allowed. Impartial judges shall assign the new value according to who has in fact started.
• P1, who is broadly for T, must say something pretty much against T, that he nonetheless more or less believes.
• P2 must then both disagree with P1 and say something pretty much for T, that he more or less believes.
• P1 must disagree with P2 (wilful misinterpretation gets especially high marks) etc

Each player should try to say more and more positive/negative things about T as they proceed, without straying completely outside what they believe. On which interesting point see the whole narrative of Generous Thing To Say, climaxing with:

I do not know whether he really believes this but it was a generous thing to say.

Encouraging such generosity is the whole point of this otherwise futile exercise. Why that is.

P1 = rd
P2 = who knows?

Well yeah, I have to admit that Thatcher could be a bit bossy at times.