Westonci.ca is your go-to source for answers, with a community ready to provide accurate and timely information. Get quick and reliable solutions to your questions from a community of seasoned experts on our user-friendly platform. Connect with a community of professionals ready to provide precise solutions to your questions quickly and accurately.
Sagot :
Answer:
during a debate round(the topic being debated was a federal job guarantee, and i was debating against it), part of my evidence was about politicians using the job guarantee system to push their political agendas, and i gave the example of trump and his wall (specifically that a job guarantee would allow him to hire people to build it, and they wouldn't have much choice other than unemployment). this was important because my point was basically that politics shouldn't be where the do not need to be. my opponent said "would you agree that some things that politicians do or want to do are good? for example, bernie sanders wanting to raise the minimum wage?" (I said yes because in my opinion the min. wage should be higher) then he said "so that strikes down your contention because you agreed that certain political agendas are good and beneficial"(not the exact words but this was several weeks ago so i can't remember it word for word)
i can't remember the name of the type of logical fallacy, but will describe it. He misinterpreted/twisted my point and what i was saying. I clarified with him that although i did agree with his question, that was only my opinion and my views, and that there are many people who would disagree with me on that matter. i then told him that my point was that politics should not be where they don't belong, which in this case was the lives and jobs of people (obviously not politicians in this case) and that a jobs guarantee would cause exactly that to happen. he still said later that because i agreed that some political agendas are good, my point did not stand.
Basically, he sort of twisted what i was saying, and made a false claim based on that.
***(for slight background i do lincoln-douglas style debate. there is also public forum style, and policy style debate.) also in this same debate round, i asked him a question (i asked if he knew if people in the jobs guarantee program would be able to choose their job) and he responds "ThIs is NoT a PoLiCy DeBaTe, So I dOn'T tHinK tHaT qUeSTioN is ReLeVAnT" (in my head i had a response but i didn't think the words 'no duh' would get me anywhere). First of all, he had no reason to say that because all it did was waste my time. Second, that was completely irrelevant to anything were talking about. Third, it did not answer my question. (also it seemed a little bit rude or almost passive-aggressive in a way) I'm pretty sure this was like a red-herring type thing
Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. Thanks for using our service. We're always here to provide accurate and up-to-date answers to all your queries. We're dedicated to helping you find the answers you need at Westonci.ca. Don't hesitate to return for more.
