I see no need to defend my views against the objections of ignoramuses. What type of logical fallacy is this? A. Straw Man, B. Circular logic, or C. Ad Hominem

1. read the following excerpt from franklin d. roosevelt's "fireside chat 19":

on the other side of the picture, we must learn also to know that guerilla warfare against the germans in, let us say serbia or norway, us; that a successful russian offensive against the germans us; and that british successes on land or sea in any part of the world strengthen our hands.

remember always that germany and italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the united states at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with britain or russia. and germany puts all the other republics of the americas into the same category of enemies. the people of our sister republics of this hemisphere can be honored by that fact.  

the true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. when we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. we americans are not destroyers — we are builders.

analyze the effectiveness of this excerpt. how does it function within the speech as a whole? how does the structure of the excerpt to convey the speech's purpose and key points? support your argument with evidence from the speech. (10 points)

ok so like i went to wiki and looked up the (constitution x new "hammystan")and it showed me the picture it highlights new hampshire and says first and second session and than it says that they hit up the u.s and was like "ey dude that paper u sent us was adopted it bro thx" xd syays it all on wiki/the pic

i dont really like reading so i guess other people might not like reading either so   imma put the answer in bold italics