Answering a question to a question is a well-known polemic trick that has long been used in discussions for specific purposes. A number of opponents use this technique intuitively, but more often they resort to it on purpose. Why is this needed?
It is possible to answer a question with a question, and in some cases it is even necessary. There is an opinion that it is indecent to use this technique. After all, educated people should only give direct answers to questions. But this is a problem of education, not of polemics. And smart speakers use this very correct trait - not to answer a question with a question - in order to deftly seize the initiative in a conversation. It is known that it is the one who asks more questions that controls the dialogue and dominates the interlocutor. This “question to question” technique can be quite useful for seizing the initiative in responsible and fateful negotiations, and even more so if you realize that they are trying to manipulate you and impose your opinion in the conversation. The best defense is offense. And here you can already apply another effective technique - "attack with questions." It is always more difficult and more responsible to answer than to ask, therefore in a dispute it is important to ask questions more often, to provoke the interlocutor into reasoning. The goal is, again, to seize the initiative and put the opponent in a difficult position. This technique is quite convenient in other situations. By answering a question with a question, you can tactfully, gently and wittily get away from the need for an answer, lead the interlocutor in a completely different direction and even puzzle him. Thus, not wanting to reveal his unwillingness to give an account, the polemicist puts a counter question mark on the question asked. An example from N. V. Gogol "Dead Souls": "- How much did you buy a soul from Plyushkin?" - Sobakevich whispered to him. - And why was Sparrow attributed? - Chichikov told him in response. " This technique is loved by both great debaters - seekers of truth and professional journalists. If you don’t feed you bread - let me argue, then “question to question” is your technique. The interlocutor opens up quickly and may even give uncomfortable answers. If you do not want to be answered so evasively, form your questions directly, clearly and specifically. In a serious conversation, this will remove possible ambiguity.
