In logical debate, what does it mean to 'beg the question'?

In logical debate, to 'beg the question' refers to a situation where an argument's conclusion is assumed in its premise, essentially restating a claim without offering any supporting evidence. This fallacy occurs when the argument takes for granted what it is supposed to prove. For example, saying "the law should be obeyed because it's illegal to break the law" assumes the audience agrees with the premise that laws should be followed, without actually providing justification for that claim. This circular reasoning fails to advance the argument or provide any additional insight, making it critical for debaters to present evidence and reasoning that substantiate their claims instead of merely restating them.

The other choices represent different logical fallacies or tactics in debate, but they do not capture the essence of begging the question. Hence, the focus on a claim restated without support encapsulates this specific fallacy accurately.