When I want to know more about something, I go to the most relevant wikipedia page I can find and start scroll-clicking relevant links. From there, the "See also"s branch out infinitely and I end up with hundreds of wikipedia tabs open ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In my experience, debates turn into arguments when they are/become too personal. It's helpful to consciously remeber the goal or catalyst of a debate when modelling sentenses, otherwise I end up accidently implying things people might find offensive through my wording, especially if I 'discover' the catalyst while speaking For example: "I think X wouldn't go wrong if Chad didn't Y" my intentions start out well, looking for a problem and solution, and all of a sudden I'm pointing fingers. In non-personal problems, that's okay because "I think the ball would go in more often if it were smaller" doesn't offend anyone. I don't know of any terms for that, but I found some good reading material looking for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestive_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-barreled_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question I think some people might interpret your example as dishonest, but I think it's just a way of asking something without too much pressure.oh man, it'd be really cool if I could come out this weekend, but I've just got nowhere to stay..." giving you a social queue to then say "oh, well you can crash at mine if you want.
Hey thanks caelum :) I'll be sure to check those sources out. Thanks for putting me onto the technique of scroll-clicking. Yeah, I think it can be both dishonest as well as not putting pressure on people, depending on the circumstances/ person I guess. It was an example of someone doing it overtly, just so I could get across the idea.