How might this debater revise her statement to reflect a better understanding of debate tactics? In a political debate, one of the debaters offered this response to her opponent: "Well, nothing that you say is ever true, so I'm not sure why we should think that your energy policy will positively affect climate change." A. The debater does not need to revise her tactics. B. The debater could explain how climate change works. C. The debater could avoid a personal attack and generalizations about her opponent, sticking instead to the facts. D. The debater could eliminate the portion about the energy policy.

Question

Lawson Rodgers

English

15 June, 21:38

How might this debater revise her statement to reflect a better understanding of debate tactics? In a political debate, one of the debaters offered this response to her opponent: "Well, nothing that you say is ever true, so I'm not sure why we should think that your energy policy will positively affect climate change." A. The debater does not need to revise her tactics. B. The debater could explain how climate change works. C. The debater could avoid a personal attack and generalizations about her opponent, sticking instead to the facts. D. The debater could eliminate the portion about the energy policy.

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Dominique Lamb · Answer 1

The correct answer is C. The debater could avoid a personal attack and generalizations about her opponent, sticking instead to the facts.

In a debate, attacking the opponent instead of the message is weak. When a debater stick to the facts, it will be harder for the opponent to counterattack especially when presented with evidences and records.