If You Ask, You Must Answer

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” – Proverbs 18:17

Engaging in meaningful discussion or debate requires fairness, intellectual honesty, and a willingness to both question and be questioned. Yet, a common pattern emerges in many debates—one party assumes the role of interrogator while refusing to answer questions themselves. This violates a fundamental principle of fair discourse: reciprocity. If a person demands answers from others, they must also be willing to provide answers to similar inquiries. Without this mutual engagement, debate devolves into an interrogation rather than a pursuit of truth.

I come from a background where formal debate was a key part of my academic experience. In college, I engaged in structured debates where cross-examination required participants to both ask and answer questions. In formal debate, we have an interlocutor to whom we must respond, while also posing our own questions. There is no room for one-sided questioning; fairness demands that both parties engage in intellectual accountability. This expectation carried into my dissertation defense, where I had to be prepared to answer questions about my research. The same standard applies in any meaningful discussion—if one takes a position, even if that position is simply “I lack belief” or “I lack faith,” they must still be willing to answer fundamental questions about their stance. If not, then this is no longer a discussion or a debate—it is simply avoidance dressed as skepticism.

This principle has long been recognized in both philosophy and rhetoric. Socrates, in his dialogues, was known for his method of questioning, yet he also entertained responses and engaged with counterarguments. Aristotle emphasized that debate should be conducted through dialectic, where both sides present and defend their positions. Modern scholars of debate and logic affirm this principle, recognizing that discourse is only productive when all participants contribute meaningfully to the exchange of ideas. As John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty, true understanding can only be reached when opposing views are not only questioned but also defended in good faith.¹

Refusing to answer questions while demanding answers is not only unfair but also reveals a lack of confidence in one’s own position. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga noted, “A debate in which one side asks all the questions and refuses to answer any is not a debate; it is an interrogation, and an interrogation does not lead to truth.“² Similarly, William Lane Craig has pointed out that atheists who ask for evidence of God’s existence must also be prepared to offer justification for their own worldview.³ This standard applies across disciplines, from theology to science to philosophy. Chaim Perelman, in his The Realm of Rhetoric, observed that an argument is only persuasive if it withstands scrutiny from both the proponent and the opponent, reinforcing the necessity of mutual accountability.⁴

Historically, scholars have recognized that intellectual honesty requires both scrutiny and self-examination. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, presented objections to his own arguments before responding to them, ensuring that his work reflected an honest engagement with opposing views.⁵ This commitment to fairness in discourse should be upheld in any debate setting today. The importance of answering questions rather than merely asking them is also recognized in contemporary discourse, particularly in political and scientific debates. For example, debates over climate change or ethics in artificial intelligence demand that both skeptics and advocates substantiate their claims rather than merely attacking the other side.

Thus, whether in theological debates, political discussions, or philosophical discourse, the principle stands: if you ask questions, you must be willing to answer them. Fairness in dialogue demands mutual accountability. Those who refuse to answer demonstrate not only a lack of intellectual integrity but an unwillingness to engage in the very process by which truth is sought. As Proverbs 18:17 reminds us, only through examination and counter-examination can one arrive at a well-reasoned conclusion. Those who wish to challenge ideas must be prepared to defend their own, lest they reveal that their objections are not based on reason, but on avoidance.

¹ John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (London: John W. Parker and Son, 1859).

² Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

³ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

⁴ Chaim Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982).

⁵ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1947).