Wasn’t there a type of learning style that was based on answering questions with questions to find the truths?
Could we do the same thing without making statements?
Can I ask the first Question to see if it works?
Why are so many people so entrenched in their viewpoints that we now spend more time talking (Yelling) at each other rather than to each other?
The term is Socratic, I believe. Plato’s Dialogues are still a compelling read, all these centuries later.
What is the difference between talking at and talking to? Is it the same as the difference between listening with an open mind and listening with a closed mind? How open does your mind have to be to cross the line between open and closed? Is the actual changing of someone else’s beliefs the only way to demonstrate that they have listened at all? Is that too many questions?
Why would you even feel a need to change someone else’s viewpoint? Are you so secure in your stances that you can fashion yourself an arbiter of others’ world-views?
So then is it the ego’s of the people involved in a debate that determines how hard their stance is?
Do plural’s have apostrophe’s?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Is the pope jewish?
Does it make you feel superior to point out other people’s errors?
Do you feel lessened when your errors are pointed out to you?
Doesn’t everyone deserve a chance to make a minor mistake without it being pointed out to them?
Are you suggesting that I’m a pedantic jerk?
Are you asking for an opinion?
Why am I not suprised that this devolved so quickly?
Was this unexpected? Can you guess my answer? 
Will we ever get back to the original question?
What do you think?
Was there ever a time when people acted differently?
Wtf?
How else should we anwer them?
How about multiple choice?
I think you’re all completely missing the point of this exercise … I mean, uh … Don’t you realize you’re completely missing the point of this exercise?