During a typical debate or apologetics-oriented conversation, whoever makes a positive claim — say, what is good is good because God says so — must then prove why the claim is true. And while a statement such as ‘what is good is good because God says so’ teeters on begging the question / circular reasoning, the person making the claim could still have supporting evidence or a means to articulate the answer.
Bearing this in mind, many apologists use the Socratic method to see whether an opponent can in fact back up a claim or specific position. For those who have heard the Socratic method described simply as “asking questions,’ or keeping a strong offense to avoid falling into an intellectual jiu-jitsu match or tit-for-tat kind of debate, the Socratic method is not merely about asking questions for clarification or to play cat-and-mouse.
Rather, two of the main components — elenchus (refutation) and aporia (“no way out”) — involve listening carefully to the claim; restating your opponent’s position; determining whether both you and your opponent are using the same definitions related to the claim; cross-examining any differences in definitions or views about the subject; and then pressing on with the cross examination until either your opponent has finally proven the claim, or hits aporia and must then deal with the position being ignorant (St. Leo, slide 13, 15).
Now, while your opponent may get aggravated from falling into aporia, a solidly constructed elenchus can charitably help opponents see their own ignorance, rather than turning belligerent or continuing to think they are absolutely correct. From there, they may also recognize their own arrogance and thus change their outlook on how they seek out knowledge, wisdom and, ultimately, truth. Therefore, a strong elenchus is “intended to be therapeutic”