Excellent. But there is another important situation to deal with, and that is when the interrogator is asking dishonestly, usually to reenforce some prejudice. Personally I have found the best way to deal with such discussions is not to have them, for the simple reason that my contempt for willful ignorance compounded by dishonesty ultimately outweighs my love and joy at explanaition.
Practically speaking, the impact of walking away from such loaded discussions is minimal, because in a healthy society generally these dishonest interrogators' views and opinions simply don't matter (apart from the odd grade-school curriculum debacle). They don't matter for two reasons: first, normally the point of understanding (e.g. evolution, or even magnetism) is not necessary to the persons practical day. Second, a healthy society tends to disregard the views of the dishonest.
This is an argument from practicality. Know when to walk away from some debates.
I agree except for the relatively few people who are familiar with this type of discourse. Those that are good at it can destroy the original framing attempt and reframe it for their own purposes. Newt Gingrich is quite good at this.
I simply don't have the verbal chops to compete. Newt studied rhetoric as I recall.
Practically speaking, the impact of walking away from such loaded discussions is minimal, because in a healthy society generally these dishonest interrogators' views and opinions simply don't matter (apart from the odd grade-school curriculum debacle). They don't matter for two reasons: first, normally the point of understanding (e.g. evolution, or even magnetism) is not necessary to the persons practical day. Second, a healthy society tends to disregard the views of the dishonest.
This is an argument from practicality. Know when to walk away from some debates.