[ aside ]
I know. I think I see what you're doing. I often do it myself in IRL* discussions.
You're essentially getting your opponent to hang himself by his own rope, rather than you making assertions of them that could be denied. (A fictional example: If, say, pluto were to admit admit that, say, Wiki is his authoritative source, you have allowed him to shoot himself in the foot. Which is much better than you insinuating that his sources are questionable, i.e. shooting him yourself, allowing him to be outraged)). This is probably different than how you might describe it. The essential point remains though, not to accuse opponents of a flaw, but rather to let them essentially confess their flaw.
It's a sound technique - under certain circumstances. It works when a) there are few participants, b) when the issue is narrow in focus and c) when there is no time limit. Unfortunately, in an online forum there are a) too many participants, b) too many parallel discussions and c) the thread moves along too fast - for the technique to be effective.
In good faith, it often behooves one to make their points short and sweet, and not simply draw the discussion out into a infinitely regressive loop of answering question with question.
* in real life
[ /aside ]
