Teacher:Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, judge whether or not a specific person is wrong here. Answer 'not answerable' if more information is required and 'answerable' if all the information is sufficient to answer who is wrong in this situation.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: [this post ](https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverybadass/comments/abzq3a/guess_im_a_scared_loser_repost_due_to_a_goof_i_did/?st=JQG4S1I1&amp;sh=e7dfa195) reached the front page so most of you have seen it. But I use the fact that you don’t have a counterpoint/ reasoning against my point as another reason to agree with me or do the thing in question. 

It’s not in a bully like way, like I just roasted him and he can’t think of something to say; it’s like where we should go to eat ex: “do you all want to eat a Burger King?” Nobody talks “I’ll take that as a yes”


TL:DR: i use people not having a counterpoint as another topic/point, but not in roasting. 
Student:
not answerable