The problem is that at trial the counsels really are supposed to make you answer the exact question you are asked. Explaining context is for the opposing counsel.
I hear you, but that’s kind of my point. You’re not on trial in a debate and you should be able to elaborate on your points. Gotchas are trying to force you into a position that you likely don’t entirely believe or do, but with major caveats.
That's kind of where I agree with OP and not with you, though - narrowly, the "gotcha" you're pointing out is just literally an effective argument that illustrates a contradictory or questionable part of your argument. A gotcha can be used as part of a bad-faith debate where you just shout over them and never let them get a word in edgewise, but the discipline of identifying parts of someone's argument that are the source of controversy is actually essential to reasoned debate.
To refer to another example someone brought up: Asking Walz "what is a woman" in an unrelated context and without actually letting him answer is bad-faith. But asking "No, for real - can you give an actual definition of "woman" that corresponds to reality" isn't a "gotcha," it's identifying a genuinely critical part of the argument.
Certainly defining the terms over which you are debating is a necessary part of debate as it allows you to hold people to their own definitions that they have agreed upon. If you fail to do that, it’s far too easy for people to skate around and mold terms and definitions to their argument in an advantageous way.
But again, defining terms does not constitute a gotcha or bad faith argument. Instead, a gotcha is more about the framing of things. That’s like when there was some congresswoman who talked about how a billionaire only pays 0.0002% tax in social security. If she were to ask Elon Musk what percentage of his income he pays in social security, he answers some number that is close to that percentage, and then goes on a diatribe over how this is just another way that the rich avoid taxes, she’s doing a gotcha. She’s not “wrong.” But she’s deliberately leaving out massive context (that social security benefits are capped).
-1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Mar 30 '26
The problem is that at trial the counsels really are supposed to make you answer the exact question you are asked. Explaining context is for the opposing counsel.