Attacks on an opponent’s character

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal21% picked this

   Attacks on an opponent’s character result from an inability to confront the

   Since this isn't a rule that has language like "should be avoided in political debates", it's functionally useless to us. This is a principle about "what does / doesn't a certain technique result from". We want a principle about "should / shouldn't a certain technique be used".

   21%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Attacks on an opponent’s character should not impress those watching a

   Since this isn't a rule that has language like "should be avoided in political debates", it's functionally useless to us. This is a principle about "what should / shouldn't impress people watching a debate". We want a principle about "what things should / shouldn't be avoided by the debaters".

   2%
3. C

   Correct54% picked this

   Debating techniques that do not confront every argument should

   Why this is right

   This has our Conclusion language, so it's instantly the most (or really only) tempting answer. The rule says: if a debating technique then that debating does not confront ? technique should every argument be avoided If we can apply this to "attacks on an opponent's character", then it gives us the conclusion perfectly! Do we know whether "attacks on an opponent's character" do not confront every argument? We do. We know that attacks on an opponent's character "do not confront the opponent's argument". Therefore, they do not confront every argument. Thus, according to this rule, attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided.

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   54%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal10% picked this

   Attacking the character of one’s opponent does nothing to preserve one’s moral right to enter

   Since this isn't a rule that has language like "should be avoided in political debates", it's functionally useless to us. This is a principle about "what does / doesn't preserve one's moral right to enter future debates". We want a principle about "should / shouldn't a certain technique be avoided in a debate".

   10%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match Negated Logic13% picked this

   Questions of character should be raised in political debate if they are relevant to

   This is worth considering, since "whether questions of character should / shouldn't be raised" is pretty nearby to "whether attacks on character should / shouldn't be avoided". This rule looks like this: if questions of character then questions are relevant to the ? of character opponent's argument should be raised Once we see it diagrammed, it becomes clear that the right side is nowhere near matching the Conclusion of the argument. This answer was probably designed to tempt people into hearing it in Illegal Opposite form: if questions of character then questions of are not relevant to the ? character should opponent's argument not be raised That would be closer to an answer we'd consider, but, of course, this answer does not actually say that.

   13%