I don't like how Alberto asks his questions

I have a little story to share about some recent things.

I have a friend that I have made not too long ago (let's call him Alberto), and he likes to ask questions about what I think and do a lot.

That's not bad in itself, because I do enjoy my beliefs being tested and seen from different perspectives. 

It's just I have an issue with the way he asks his questions and his argument style. 

I'll give some examples of how he thinks:

1. Alberto said that people who use 24-hour time are only "trying to be different." 

I thought that sounded weird, and lo and behold, I found out that 2/3 of the population of the world use 24-hour time. 

People don't use "military time" to stand out, it's actually more commonly used than 12-hour time. 

2. The other day, I was telling him how I prefer computers over iPads, and he seemed to prefer the latter so one of his first questions was, "Honestly, what can a computer do that an iPad can't do?" 

Someone who asks this question clearly does not know very much about computers.

Now, the reason those conversations bother me is because of the way Alberto asks a question. 

He asks a question like he's making a point--the question itself is a point to him, and I've noticed other people do this too. 

But, the way I see it, a question is not a point, it is a prompt. 

People carry so much confidence in an inquiry because they expect the person they're talking with to automatically understand the implications from the question, but understanding the points implied is not in the same stage as hearing the question.

I'll say it again, a question is not a statement, it is a prompt. 

The problem is that people treat their question like it's a really important fact they've just shared. 

I don't think these types of people know how to argue well, but this style of arguing is effective at slowing the other person down as I have experienced because:

1. The receiver has to first understand the question--the same as understanding any question.

2. But then secondly, the receiver is forced to try to read the inquisitor's mind because the inquisitor did not give a point, only a question, and the points are hidden in the question.

So this slows down the receiver's thought process by having to basically explain the inquisitor's point for them in his head before replying, which can take too long and thus the inquisitor can start to take the lead from the receiver taking too long to answer back. 

I'll give my best example of my problem with arguing with Alberto.

I accidentally stole batteries from Walmart the other night when Alberto and I went shopping for supplies together. 

They were in my pocket and I had forgotten I put them there, purchased my other stuff, and then walked out the door. 

I realized before we left the parking lot, and so I went back inside to pay for my batteries. 

I explained why I did this to Alberto.

I started out with saying how I try to think about what is wrong to do in principle, such as asking myself, "Would X act be okay for me to do still if everyone else in the world did it?" 

"Would X act be okay for me to do if it was a universal law?" 

I didn't think everyone stealing batteries from Walmart was okay, so I decided to redeem myself. 

I also explained how I didn't want to make a habit of stealing things because habits start small and then grow, and they can begin with things like stealing batteries from Walmart and being fine with that. 

We both believe in God, and so he thought my reasoning was ignoring God's commands of right and wrong and instead focusing on my own rationale. 

(I have my own thoughts to share about that above, but I've already typed a lot so I'll skip it for sake of relevance + being concise.)

Alberto led with the question, "What is good and bad?" 

My immediate thought was "This is vague because he didn't give much context to it. Like, is he asking what are good and bad things to do?" 

And it's a big question too.

I felt kind of stumped because I didn't know how to respond at first. The question seemed out of the blue since there was no support he had given for it. 

I provided context by saying murder was bad, and then he asked why is murder bad.

I said for reasons such as it being an act of hatred and personal revenge.

Then he said why is killing bad which is not what I said, and this is where you can see I start to become annoyed with the way he argues.

He likes to ask questions a lot without giving many points.

I've noticed this can make a person seem smart because the asker can become the conductor of the conversation easily by leading it with their questions.  

It's more of a facade though because it doesn't actually display much knowledge of the topic, more like a distraction from letting anyone know that he doesn't know as much as you would think. 

A question is not an explanation of anything which is something you need in order to argue, so Alberto does not understand the fundamentals of debating.

It seems like he eventually gets bored with my continuous answers, probably because I go a bit slower to counter him seemingly trying to speed things up for a quick victory by just asking big questions that can take a while to answer or not really giving any points at all, so the person he's talking to has to carry the weight of any meat of the topic being shared or explained. 

And the reason he questions me so frequently is because I tell him some of my deeper beliefs about life and the way I act.

I do this to sharpen my ability to explain myself, to make conversation, or to see if I'm actually wrong about something. 

And, truly, I have it coming when he starts to question me because I know how he thinks, and I can tell when he is going to probe me with his own thoughts against mine. 

I'd appreciate any thoughts from you guys!

Any similar situations?

Similar friends?

Ever steal batteries from Walmart?

Getting into this would explain more my criticisms of Alberto.

I might make another forum thread about it 

I do notice that some people use questions rhetorically, (I do that 'sometimes, more often in debates than rest of life).

I suppose it can be annoying sometimes, if the person doesn't actually want the question answered, they just wanted to make a statement.

Though again, might be I do the same sometimes.

I've read that a number of people found Socrates annoying,

Lot of people like his method, may not be skilled in it though.

I had a couple jugs of milk on the bottom of the shopping cart that I missed when I paid for groceries once,

But hadn't left the store yet when I noticed, so they were easy enough to go back for, still felt a bit embarrassing, but eh.

I've never stolen batteries before (That I can remember)

Stores seem to be locking them up lately, which personally inclines me not to get them at all if I have to ask for help.

From this text, I understand that his questions are the source of a problem.

I think questions are healthy enough in a debate. Well, anything which engages the brain is healthy.

If you dont want to answer questions, then questions can be countered in 3 ways:

1. Ask a counter question. (Why?, Why not?)

2. Use sarcastic answer (Opposite of your actual argument).

3. Give answer which actually ignores the question

Questions for some people are mainly "emotional arguments" which try to put burden of proof on opponent and which try to force opponent to explain what you tell him to.

Questions are not arguments, obviously. They are just very good at presenting themselves as they were.

Is Alberto real.

Otherwise it's just two opinionated people, getting along but never quite agreeing.

Pretty typical behaviour.

Especially for two comparative strangers, discussing contentious topics.