No. You identify a condition, come to an agreement that it is held as a condition and proceed.
The Socratic Method is a teaching tool, not a means of argument. The professor asks these seemingly annoying questions to explore the basis for the student’s statements and see their logical extensions. These questions prompt the student to expound upon his or her position, think critically about it, and modify it as necessary. It is not to prove the student right or wrong or to “win” an argument.
so you would both have to agree that violence meant physical harm, it couldn’t mean threat as well as harm? maybe there is a better example, its just an example. i’m using the word definition and you are using the word condition. how do they differ?
Do a search for implication, or take a few logic courses?
The point of the Socratic method is to lead the person to answer their own question, rather than to get them to agree with your opinion. It is very possible that a person will get down to their barest assumptions and still disagree with you. The Socratic method prevents you from being able to advocate your own ideas, so that means you’ve just lost the argument.
That’s why the Socratic method is a teaching method, not an argument method. It helps you learn new things by applying what you already know.
It does not hurt to have someone recording the discussion who will shape the discussion favorably to whichever side the scribe wishes would win.
= = =
There is nothing in the Socratic Method as employed in real life that can guarantee a “win,” even by people who are trying to “abuse” the method. If the person playing “Socrates” tries to abuse the method against a person who is brighter and more knowledgeable, the erstwhile "Socrates"will have his head handed to him in a genuine discussion.
usernameforbidden says:
You identify a condition, come to an agreement that it is held as a condition and proceed.
that sounds like there is one right answer. it sounds like you are saying there is not one right answer, it is a method of “expanding” your thinking by having your ideas challenged. maybe i’m getting things confused though.
seems to me like you’re trying to back out of answering what are the conditions, definition, whatever, for “freedom”. maybe you’re not but if it is really such a simple matter you could just say how “freedom” is determined so that you can apply the socratic method to the term.
ah ok. thanks!!!
That is not “abusing” the Socratic method, it is trolling.
Hemlock.
Probably Conium maculatum.
Infusion of it in wine, I think.
Okay, after reading this thread, I’ve come to 2 possible conclusions…
- The OP is a fan of Martin Short’s “Nathan Thurm” character from his days on SNL.
B. The OP just discovered Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic Sketch” and is pretending he’s John Cleese.
actually i heard someone ask the question on a separate website
i dont know why you would say what you did 
Seems to me I’ve done my due diligence in answering your question and if you don’t like it you can go do something I can’t say on the message board.
Oh, I’m sorry, this is abuse! You want thread 12A, just along the corridor.
Just, wow. You might have trouble on message boards and in real life… Come to think of it, I hope you are “just f_ucking with people” here, because if you think this is how to treat people, how to have a ‘debate’ or a conversation, you may have a problem.
it would seem as if you put a lot of effort into cobbling those quotes together. did you find it to be a satisfactory experience?
Yeah, I’m high-fiving my poodl… hey, wait, did you just Socratic Method me?
Well, you win.
actually dude the quotes made for a most excellent burn 