How might this debater revise her statement to reflect a better understanding of debate tactics?
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 e

Question

How might this debater revise her statement to reflect a better understanding of debate tactics?
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 e

anonymous · Answer

Is there a text?

anonymous · Answer

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."

anonymous · Answer

@ManImStumped

anonymous · Answer

It is C, since attacking the messenger, not the message, is a weak debate