Bringing this up for a third time

A question cannot and should never be perceived as an argument, therefore a question can never be a fallacy.
Furthermore, the loaded question is a myth, because even loaded questions can be answered.

IE, if a loaded question makes the person who answers seem less credible, perhaps it was actually a good question. It is what lawyers do when they want to win a case, so judges on Edeb8 should be just as accepting as a judge in court.

Blackflag: IE, if a loaded question makes the person who answers seem less credible, perhaps it was actually a good question. It is what lawyers do when they want to win a case, so judges on Edeb8 should be just as accepting as a judge in court.

Or perhaps its a question based on a partial quote that is telling the person answering the question what they think based on cross thread contamination?

If there is valid point to the question, then the person asking it should be able to spell it out rather than asking fallaciously misleading questions based on partial quotes.

Let me familiarize you with the loaded question fallacy too boot.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back

What lawyers do when they want to win a case is present evidence in support of charge, or a judge throws them out of court. So if someone comes in about a speeding ticket and starts asking someone about their rank in the service? You can see the disconnect, and how any sense of rationality about the speeding ticket has just been suspended.

Generally speaking, there is a construct to discussion - beyond noting that people who ask questions should also be prepared to ANSWER questions, but that format would be:

Thesis - this is generally the point you want to make (lawyers generally do this as in Ed was speeding!)

Supporting evidence - This is what lead you to believe what your thesis is (Lawyer: Ed was clocked by police radar at 105mph, his car plates were observed and reported by no less than a dozen witnesses to can attest to his great excess of speed - and a police helicopter was dispatched that also recorded him going 105mph). For a lawyer, that would be a pretty strong case - but it does not end there ... because SMART lawyers know that there is a defense attorney as well!

Rebuttal of common counters - This would demonstrate that you have studied the issues enough to recognize and counter common criticism (Lawyer: Ed will tell you that the radar was not calibrated properly [I have the maintenance and calibration records right here validating the accuracy of the systems], and Ed will try to tell you that eye witnesses can be misleading. However, we have hundreds of eye witnesses and choose only the dozen that recognized his care make, model, color, and recorded his plates - along with the voice recording of those dozen witnesses. We've also mechanically checked the car, and there is no indication of any malfunction - Ed could only have been going that speed by deliberately pressing the gas pedal.

Conclusion: Ed was speeding.

Now if a lawyer walked in and said: Do you think Ed has a speedometer? I would recommend hiring a different lawyer.

Loaded Questions are fallacious.

Let me familiarize you with the loaded question fallacy too boot.
Well I made this thread because I disagree with the common conclusion that it is fallacious.
It is one thing for something to be called fallacious, but usually there is some reason for it. Not that I understand it.

I read what you wrote, and I really do not see how this proves a question can be fallacious.

According to Oxford, a fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. A question isn't a reasoning entity, so it cannot be a fallcy.
Good questions were probably called fallacies by people who were tired of being owned in debates.

Blackflag: What if a question contains an argument?

Like, do you agree that because Germany is red, you can "have it your way"?

admin: You either agree or you do not agree. Or you can flesh out the answer more.

Blackflag: But surely the argument can be fallacious, like that one was. Questions are not really free of fallacies just because they are questions.

Loaded questions etc are fallacies if, and only if, you conclude that they produce accurate answers. Study after study shows that they don't. People can be manipulated into answering how you want them to answer, which is not helpful if your goal is trying to draw information out of them. As such, most forms of CX see it as a form of manipulating the opponents into contradicting themselves, which is poor form. Judges want to understand both sides of the argument after all, and this is what CX is all about.

But surely the argument can be fallacious, like that one was. Questions are not really free of fallacies just because they are questions.
I concede questions can have fallacies in them. I still think there should be no complaints about answering them though.

Blackflag: I concede questions can have fallacies in them. I still think there should be no complaints about answering them though.

Then you fully endorse the use of fallacy in discourse?

gree0232: In discourse, no. In debate, absolutely.

Debate is about being convincing to an audience, and in many modern forms of debate, we like to act as if we are politicians. Ignoring the fact that all arguments contain fallacies, they are still practical. Can you name one political argument that isn't fallacious in some way?

It looks like they updated me and admins favorite article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Blackflag: In discourse, no. In debate, absolutely.

Debate is about being convincing to an audience, and in many modern forms of debate, we like to act as if we are politicians. Ignoring the fact that all arguments contain fallacies, they are still practical. Can you name one political argument that isn't fallacious in some way?

Not all arguments contain fallacies stag. The basic constructs of logic (which would include math BTW - which is almost impossible to be fallacious) include inductive and deductive reasoning, and a sound argument from either will NOT contain a fallacy.

Partially quoting people to ask loaded questions and then repeatedly failing to spell out what you mean is not modern debate, its simply poor quality debate.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

That would be my favorite article about those who use fallacies and seem to ignore the rules of logic.