Do You Still Hit Your Wife?

* From “The A**HOLE’S Guide To Arguing (Or, How To Succeed In Politics)”

Loaded questions are one of the asshole’s favourite weapons. They can make an opponent in a debate lose their composure and focus in an instant.

A loaded question forces the opponent to defend themselves against an accusation, which will make them appear guilty regardless of how well they answer it. This is because the question has a built in presumption of guilt. Share on X

When the person tries to get out of the trap, they sometimes end up making it worse.

“So have you found the misplaced funds yet, Mayor?”
“No.”
“So they are still missing. You lost them.”
“No, I did not lose any money.”
“But they’re still gone?”
“No the money is not gone. I never lost any money, I tell you.”
“Then why are they missing?”
“They’re not missing! The receipts are missing.”
“The receipts for the missing money?”
“Yes. No! They’re not missing. There is no missing money.”
“Then what receipts are you looking for?”

This is an argument that can go on indefinitely, and where the Mayor proceeds to dig an even deeper hole for themselves.

What may have happened here, is that money was reported missing because the receipts for what they had been used for could not be found. In other words, the money did not go missing – only the receipts.

But the way the opponent makes it sound here is that the Mayor has lost the money, misplaced it or maybe even embezzled it. For if there are no receipts to explain what they were used for, maybe that is what happened.

The loaded question ‘So have you found the misplaced funds yet, Mayor?’ assumes that the Mayor is either careless or a thief, neither of which makes them look good.

However, if you are aware that the question is loaded, there is a way to get out of it.

“So, John. Do you still hit your wife?”

This question assumes that John at some point has hit his wife. The form of the question makes it seem like it can be answered by a simple yes or no, but that is misleading.

If John answers ‘No’ to this question it would appear that he is admitting guilt. He would be saying that he has at one point hit his wife but that he no longer does it.

The way to get out of it would be to not fall into the yes/no trap and instead answer,

“I have never hit my wife.”

That could still leave John open to the accusation that he is avoiding the question. If this happens it may be time to call out the loaded question.

“The question you asked presumed that I had hit my wife at some point, which is false. When I told you that I had never hit my wife, that was the only correct response I could give. And with that I have answered both the question and the false assumption within it.”

If John’s asshole genes switch on at this point he could always launch an equally heinous counter attack. Or, use the loaded question as a stepping stone to bring the debate back on track.

“But of course, if you wish to derail this debate with loaded questions, maybe you would like to answer mine, Pastor. Do you still abuse altar boys?”

John could just leave it here if he wants to derail the debate. But if he wants it to resume he could continue with the following,

“Now, we could continue like this all night, throwing loaded questions at each other, but that would not be very helpful to the people watching this debate. They want to hear us discuss pro-life versus pro-choice. So I would like to propose that we get this debate back on track, and back on topic. What do you think?”

Unless the good Pastor really wants to answer the loaded question about him and the altar boys, he will most likely agree with John and bring the debate back on topic.

© Merlyn Gabriel Miller