Read the scenario below and answer the question that follows. In a political debate, one of the debaters offered this response t
o 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." 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 energy policy and add another personal attack against her opponent to make her point.
Answer: C) The debater could avoid a personal attack and generalizations about her opponent, sticking instead to the facts.
Explanation: In the given scenario where we can see a political debate, one of the debaters attacks her opponent, by saying that this last one never has said something true, so she uses this argument to imply that what her opponent is saying, isn't true. She must revise her statement by avoiding the personal attack and the generalizations about her opponent, and basing her argument in the facts.
