Conspiracy theorists are gonna love this; the only existing definitions of what a close-ended question are that can be found on Google are all of them written in Russian.
A politician might ask, in response to criticism of, say, green policies, "Don't you believe in fighting global warming?"
The only obvious answer would be yes you do believe in it, and if pushed you'd probably say something like "well, yes" albeit hesitantly, because that's not REALLY what you wanted to say and it isn't REALLy what you were trying to talk about in the first place.
The main point about a close-ended question is that it isn't genuinely interrogative. It isn't an attempt to elicit information, it's an attempt to curtail debate by effectively forcing a response into your mouth. People who need to end debate while appearing to welcome it are usually in some form of authority, one with no substance whatsoever, and especially one that simply can't bear the scrutiny of open debate.
It's just technique. You use technique in debate or question and answer scenarios just the same way you use technique and experience in a boxing match, the crucial difference being that boxing is a medium where blows are visibly exchanged. One opponent is recognisably better than the other because of technique and experience, not because either is in any way somehow morally superior. If one boxer beats another in a fair fight, no-one thinks it appropriate to accept his policies or world view to be in any way superior to the losing opponent's. But we assume that in debate, you see, if one politician scores points over another in debate we assume that, somehow and wholly irrationally, their world view, their morality, their policies are somehow correct but winning in debate, as we have seen, is just as much a consequence of experience and technique. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being right about anything except winning in debate. Irrelevant when it comes to judging the right thing to do in any given circumstance.
The close-ended question prompts a specific reply, it doesn't invite consideration of the underlying question. in other words, you're prompted, without realising it, to give the answer that the questioner wants you to give, not say what you intended to say or would say given the opportunity to in a frank and open discussion. It perfectly suits the sound bite medium of TV and headlines. Someone who asks you close-ended questions is someone who wants to control you, no doubt of it.
I remember watching a program about recruiters for the first World War, how as things grew more and more desperate they'd be roaming the streets of London trying to force young lads to recruit by asking them why they hadn't and "Are you a coward?"
Obviously and particularly in a time of war young lads, not yet old enough to have found their own identity or properly formed their own opinions, felt compelled to answer that they weren't cowards, of course not, and were then asked that in that case then of course they wanted to sign up, didn't they, which in turn compelled them, albeit rather awkwardly I gather, that yes, they supposed they did. Then, having been bludgeoned into "volunteering", they were sent off to die in the trenches. I heard this from a veteran of those days, one of the very few survivors. If these lads had been educated in recognising a close-ended question for what it was, my assumption is they wouldn't have felt compelled to answer as they did.
More recently, a former Muslim/Al Queida terrorist was asked about methods used to recruit young potential terrorists in Britain. They're asked, "Are you British or are you Muslim?" You see the attempt to force them to an either/or answer? It isn't a genuinely interrogative question, that would have been something like 2How do you feel about being British and Muslim?", or "Do you feel there's any conflict about being Muslim and British?" which would allow the responder to answer in their own manner. Instead, it's manipulative, in responding at all you're giving the questioner what they want.
More recently still, (you have the feeling I'll be adding to this page on a regular basis) Pakistan was taken over by its military. One of its ministers, obviously in favour, was on British TV to ahem, discuss this;"Well do you want a stable Pakistan or not?" he asked, the clear suggestion being that military force was the only way to accomplish this, yet he offered nothing by way of evidence to suggest that this might be so. He appeared to be there for the sole purpose of shutting down any meaningful debate - would we be right in assuming that no reasonable defence of the military's actions could be mustered? I'd say so - this was in front of the world, and that was the best a minister could come up with, a blatant attempt to close down debate? I'm not familiar with the circumstances in Pakistan so I couldn't say who's right or wrong but that clumsy attempt at justification for the military action didn't exactly inspire confidence in it.
Close-ended question An attempt to end any debate about the matter in hand that masquerades as an apparent attempt to elicit general information. In fact, by couching the "question", if it can so be called, in a close-ended form the enquirer seeks to force the return of one of a limited set of responses, usually an unqualified negative or positive.
