The only example of a historical argument would be "<span>B.The Roman Empire traded with Han China because Chinese silk had been found in early Roman cities," since this would require some evidence in order to be convincing. The other options are either questions on basic facts. </span>
Answer:
The correct answer is D. It is not correct to try to convince the other person to agree with you when having a meaningful political conversation.
Explanation:
When talking about political issues, they often deal with controversial issues that can turn friendly talk into heated discussion. Therefore, as a way to prevent this, there are certain guidelines that must be taken into account.
Thus, not shouting, speaking personally and contemplating the opinion of the other party are fundamental criteria when it comes to having a serious and friendly political debate. In this way, cordiality regulates the content of the talk, and the acceptance of the thought different from the other (without the need to share it) gives legitimacy to the idea of the other person.
On the other hand, if in the conversation one of the parties tries to convince the other of its ideology, the conversation will most likely fail. This is so because when trying to convince, the other person's belief or conviction is discredited, a question that many people can take as a personal insult. Therefore, it is totally inadvisable to carry out this type of actions.
He argued for two main points, independence from England and the creation of a democratic republic.
Jeff was an anti-federalist, answer is a
I think it's Ireland, but I could be wrong. Good luck!
