Asking questions to make opponent look foolish, actual debate technique?

Factual Questions
1

I’m thinking of something where the answer is so blindingly obvious the only reason for asking is to get a response that can then be attacked.

Fictitious example debate about gay marriage:

Deb1:Well next people will ask to marry dogs.
Deb2:Uh no.
Deb1:Why not? Why didn’t you marry a dog?

NOW There is no answer to that aside from a novel length one that won’t sound stupid and silly, try it.

Because I’ve never found a dog stimulating intellectually.
Because I’m not sexually attracted to dogs.
Because a dog is going to be dead within a decade.

Etc., you can imagine the pointless attacks to follow each.

Does this have a name?

2

Nearest I can come up with is ‘sophistry’.

Possible riposte -
“Why didn’t you marry a dog?”

“Because you were already married.”

3

Hyperbole?

4

It depends on the situation, but reductio ad absurdum (“reduction to absurdity”) can sometimes make a person look very foolish.

5

Or just go on the attack.

Deb2: So you’re comparing people to dogs? Somebody who’s gay isn’t even human to you? They’re just animals. I suppose next you’ll be saying we should round up gay people like we do stray dogs and kill them. That’s your real goal isn’t it? You want a gay holocaust. You disgust me.

6

I’m a bit confused, is Deb1 pro-gay marriage but pretending to be anti so that he can paint Deb2 into a corner or make their positions look absurd?

I recall several years ago when Rand Paul was on Rachel Maddow’s show, and Maddow basically painted him into a corner where in order for his views to appear consistent Paul came out against various parts of the civil rights act (claiming that private industry should be able to engage in segregation).

7

Yup, I guess I should have specified it is obvious the argument is in bad faith.

8

Deb1 is anti-gay marriage and just flailing around trying to get the opposition to say something, anything they can attack by playing dumb.

9

I can honestly say that I don’t understand the OP at all. I don’t understand what grude is asking or what the debate is about. I got lost at the ‘why didn’t you marry a dog’ part. Either way, this part sounds like a strawman.

10

One side is asking obviously silly questions in bad faith hoping the other side will say something they can then attack.

The debate in the OP was just an example of just that.

11

Perhaps the OP is referring to “The Loaded Question” like "have you stopped beating your wife?’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

12

The serious answer would be that dogs aren’t recognized as adult human beings who can enter contracts and give consent to being married.

13

There was somebody on this message board who recently attempted essentially the same argument. Their opposition to recognizing gay marriage was that it would allow people to marry their washing machines.

14

I would say the OP is describing a disingenuous question. Disingenuous questioning is an offshoot or perhaps a generalization of the Socratic method, in which ignorance is feigned on occasion.

15

Also called a “presumptuous question”, because the wording of the question presumes facts that are not in evidence (to-wit, that you do in fact have a wife and that at one time you beat her).

16

“I didn’t want to marry a dog”.

I’m really not seeing that it’s a difficult question to answer simply and convincingly.