How do you use leading questions in a debate? What are the benefits of steering a conversation by asking questions?
According to Trey Gowdy, there are three types of questions: leading, non-leading, and “why” questions. Leading questions can be used to direct the conversation and stay on topic when you’re opponent changes the subject.
Let’s look at how to ask leading questions in a debate.
Taking the Lead
Leading questions suggest their own answer in the way the question is asked. For example, beginning a question with “Wouldn’t you agree that…” or “Isn’t it true that…” invites the person to adopt your reasoning on an issue rather than to express their own. Even less directly leading questions can subtly push the person toward agreeing with you, with phrasing like “Is there any way you’d consider…” or at least toward subjects that better serve your position, such as “Why don’t we think about…” Gowdy argues that these types of questions, in inviting the other person to speak and suggesting collaboration in their phrasing, are more convincing and less inflammatory than simple “I believe” or “I disagree” statements.
| Strategic Use of Leading Questions While Gowdy encourages learning how to ask leading questions based on his experiences as a prosecutor, in American courtrooms they’re only permitted under specific circumstances. Lawyers are allowed to ask leading questions when cross-examining a witness introduced by their opponent, but not during direct examination of their own witnesses. The thinking is that while direct examination provides testimony, during which a lawyer shouldn’t try to speak for a witness, cross-examination allows for testimony to be questioned and clarified, so a lawyer can use leading questions to point out inconsistencies or flaws in the evidence. In this same way, while you may not be able to force your opponent into accepting your point of view outright (for example, the question “Shouldn’t I refuse to lend you money when you never pay me back?” is unlikely to be received well), you can lead them into making certain concessions based on evidence that they themselves introduced (“You said I lent you $50 last month. Isn’t it true you haven’t paid me back yet, even though you said you would?”). |
Gowdy says that leading questions also allow you to direct the flow of the conversation and keep things on topic. Even if your opponent introduces subjects or facts you don’t want discussed, you can ignore or steer the conversation away from them with your next question. Gowdy also suggests reframing things they say in a way that’s more favorable to you, for example, with phrases like “Surely you aren’t arguing that…” or “Couldn’t that also mean…” However, he stresses that you should genuinely listen to your opponent’s answers rather than simply waiting for your turn to speak. If your questions appear sincere, your opponent will be more engaged, and you’re more likely to end the conversation positively, if not in agreement.
(Shortform note: While it’s implied from this piece of advice, Gowdy doesn’t discuss the potential downsides of leading questions—namely that if you aren’t strategic about it, you can seem manipulative, and your opponent may accuse you of “twisting” their words. On his blog, leadership expert Matt Norman distinguishes between leading and “guiding” questions: While the latter still steer the conversation toward a particular answer, they’re more open-ended and encourage your opponent to speak at length, making them feel engaged and in control. Following Norman’s advice, the leading “Wouldn’t a mall be good for the neighborhood?” could be rephrased to the guiding “What changes or business opportunities would you like to see?”)
