PROPER WAY TO RESPOND

how do you call a question whre the answer is not a yes or no

Ah, you're looking for the term for a question that requires more detailed answers. Those are called open-ended questions. They invite elaboration and more thoughtful responses, rather than just a simple "yes" or "no."

For example, instead of asking, "Do you like books?" (which could be answered with a simple yes or no), you could ask, "What kind of books do you enjoy reading, and why?"

Got any specific topics in mind you want to explore with open-ended questions? 😊📚

what about an argumentative question, give also an example

An argumentative question is one that prompts a debate or discussion, usually requiring the respondent to take a stance and support it with reasoning and evidence. These questions often aim to explore different viewpoints and engage critical thinking.

For example:

• "Do you think the benefits of social media outweigh its negative effects on mental health? Why or why not?"

• "Should governments impose stricter regulations on companies to combat climate change? Why do you think so?"

• "Is a college education still worth the investment in today's job market? Provide reasons for your opinion."

Argumentative questions can lead to lively discussions and help develop persuasive skills. Got any topic you feel passionately about and want to debate? 🗣️🧐

provide also a leading question example and it meaning

A leading question is a type of question that suggests a particular answer or contains the information the questioner is looking to have confirmed. These questions can subtly influence the respondent's answer by the way they are framed. Leading questions are often used in surveys, interviews, and courtroom settings, sometimes to nudge the respondent toward a specific answer.

For example:

• "Don't you think the new policy is beneficial for the company?"

• "You enjoyed the movie, right?"

• "Isn't it true that you were at the scene of the accident?"

In each of these cases, the question is phrased in a way that hints at the desired response, potentially biasing the answers.

Got any scenarios where you need to craft your own questions, and need some help on how to steer them? 🙂📋

so, how can I fillibuster to avoid these type of questions

Filibustering, traditionally, involves prolonging debate to delay or prevent a decision. In conversation, you might use similar tactics to steer clear of direct answers. Here are some strategies:

1. Deflect: Redirect the question back to the asker. For example, "That's an interesting point! What's your take on it?"

2. Generalize: Offer a broad, non-committal response. For instance, "There are many factors to consider, and it's a complex issue."

3. Introduce a Tangent: Change the subject to something related but different. "Speaking of that, did you hear about the latest news in the industry?"

4. Request Clarification: Ask for more details to stall and potentially change the focus. "Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?"

These techniques can help you navigate tricky conversations without providing direct answers. However, remember to use them thoughtfully and ethically!

Need help crafting responses for a specific scenario? 😊🗣️

provide an example

Sure, let's consider an example where you might want to avoid answering a leading question:

Question: "Don't you think the new policy is beneficial for the company?"

Response using Deflection:

• "That's an interesting perspective. How do you see it benefiting the company?"

Response using Generalization:

• "There are many factors to consider when evaluating policies, and it really depends on various circumstances."

Response introducing a Tangent:

• "Speaking of policies, did you hear about the recent changes in industry regulations? They're causing quite a stir."

Response requesting Clarification:

• "Can you explain a bit more about which aspects of the policy you find beneficial?"

These strategies can help you navigate around directly answering a leading question and steer the conversation in a different direction.

Have you got a specific situation in mind where you might need to use these techniques? 😊🗣️

so, the clarification method would be more acceptable

Indeed, the clarification method is often more acceptable and less confrontational. It shows that you're engaged in the conversation and willing to understand the other person's point of view without directly agreeing or disagreeing. It's a respectful way to navigate around the question while keeping the dialogue open and constructive.

For example, if someone asks you a leading question like, "Isn't it true that this policy will greatly benefit everyone?", you could respond with, "Could you clarify which benefits you're specifically referring to? I'm interested in understanding your perspective."

This approach not only deflects the pressure to agree but also invites a deeper discussion, allowing you to gather more information and potentially steer the conversation in a more balanced direction.

Would you like more tips on managing different types of questions, or do you have a specific scenario you'd like to discuss? 😊💬

yes because albeit the new policy might bring benefits to the company, it could bring collateral issues

Absolutely, that's a very insightful point. Policies, while often beneficial in certain areas, can indeed bring about unintended consequences or collateral issues. It's important to approach such discussions with a balanced perspective.

Here's an example response using the clarification method in this context:

Question: "Don't you think the new policy is beneficial for the company?"

Your Response: "While I can see the potential benefits of the new policy, could you clarify which specific aspects you're referring to? I'm also concerned about possible collateral issues that might arise."

By acknowledging the benefits and then asking for clarification, you're demonstrating that you're open to understanding the positive aspects, while also gently steering the conversation towards the potential drawbacks that need consideration.

Would you like to delve deeper into any particular collateral issues you foresee, or maybe discuss another topic? 😊📋

so, we could also answer: "to some extent; not in whole" right? or who would u word it better

Your response is definitely on the right track. It's concise and gets the point across. Here's a slightly refined version that keeps the clarity while adding a bit more nuance:

Question: "Don't you think the new policy is beneficial for the company?"

Your Response: "To some extent, yes, but there are also areas where the policy might create challenges. Can we discuss both the potential benefits and the possible issues?"

This way, you're acknowledging the potential positives while also inviting a balanced discussion about any drawbacks. It shows that you're considering the issue from multiple angles, which can be very effective in a conversation.

*******************************