I think the spirit of the Socratic method of asking questions could flourish if we picked our questions better (this post is mostly a stream of consciousness, it can probably be explained better).
For example, someone responding to a general idea with a specific scenario that would act as a natural exception can be less of a challenge to the general idea than it is simply establishing that, when you get more specific, exceptions can form (which is usually a given).
There's also the inverse of that. I have stated something very specific, and the question given in response is, "what if we took something specific to that situation and applied it generally?" What was being discussed was pretty specific, so applying it generally is potentially nonsensical.
I think bringing up exceptions, or how something might apply generally, can be contextually relevant to a discussion. The latter in particular is relevant if trying to solve a problem with a new law (as in, "this law is meant to solve this, but how will it affect other things?").
What I'm criticizing is "what-aboutism" in which the discussion is effectively halted or sent off on tangents. They're less challenging the points, and more distracting from them by shifting context and focus, or trying to be "gotcha!" moments.
In the case of trying to pull a "gotcha!", it becomes less about knowledge and more about "winning," and that kills actual argument and discussion.
