a worthwhile evaluation of the debate

Here is another example of why Ian Urquart is a journalist. He doesn't evaluate who 'won' the debate like it's a sporting event (and inevitably concluding that - like every other debate - "no knockout blow was landed"). He doesn't express amazement that the incumbent premier was "put on the defensive" by his opposition, or that that same premier was "still standing" by the end. He doesn't congratulate John Tory for "personalizing" his positions by ignoring facts/trends and citing individuals he met who had had a raw deal.

He actually takes a look at what was said.

It's just good journalism for a change. Because this, on the other hand, is complete nonsense written around a neat picture.