Leading questions can generally be counteracted by an appeal to getting appropriate definition of terms, assumptions and conditions. That I believe is why leading questions are questioned in trials, because witnesses are not generally equipped to quibble with manipulative assumptions.
Follow up reply: the Wikipedia summary lead-off you started this thread with (The Socratic method is a form of argumentative dialogue in which an individual probes a conversation partner on a topic, using questions and clarifications, until the partner is pressed to come to a conclusion on their own, or else their reasoning breaks down and they are forced to admit ignorance) does not go on to suggest necessary elements is the use of leading questions, begging the question, and the rest of the add-ons. Questioning and clarifications.
What method would you use to force a resistant adversary into conceding your claim?
Seduction!
Which to me is tedious beyond tedious. Nothing says to me that a debate is going nowhere like an argument about terminology. If someone's going to be shifty about definitions, you might as well just give up trying to have a reasonable conversation, and walk away.
My view is that courts are a special context that has significantly different rules and expectations.
I wouldn't, is my point. Make your argument - premises, evidence, argument, conclusion - and let people decide for themselves whether you've convinced them.
Got it.
Because, it's about being honest. The concessions aren't rhetorical. If you won't agree to the validity of the premises, you can sidestep the conclusion. That's basic syllogistic logic. If you accept the major and minor premise of a syllogism, it is irrational to deny the conclusion.
Again, it isn't.