The asking of hypothetical questions is what I do here.
But the question was not about asking them - it was about answering them.
You are correct about the "debates about words" (2 Timothy 2:14, 23; Titus 3:9; Colossians 2:8)...
But these were talking about disputes within the Christian Congregation that threatened to become divisive issues among the brothers. You are right that it is sometimes used to dissuade conversations that go nowhere in terms of "making disciples". But the example of Paul also shows that he did not mean we should entirely dismiss other viewpoints as unworthy of discussion. Look at Titus 1:10-14. See in verse 12, Paul quotes Epimenides - a Cretan philosopher who, in the 6th century BCE, composed a poem to support his theological argument of Zeus' immortality - (most Cretans did not agree with him):
They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
Clearly Paul had read Epimenides and considered the writings quite seriously. He quotes also the last line of this stanza in his famous speech to the Athenians at the Areopagus (Acts 17:28)
.
So Paul had no problem with hypotheticals - unless we are assuming that he thought that the existence and immortality of Zeus were actually true?
These are not the only quotes from pre-Christian human philosophy - or, indeed, "Jewish fables" (Jude quotes from the pseudepigryphal Book of Enoch for example - Jude 1:14-15) - that got elevated to the status of "divinely revealed truth" in the Christian Greek Scriptures. That's a tough one for JWs - or any other fundamentalist/literalist interpreter of the Bible to answer (convincingly). But the point is, as far as I can see, although some JWs may interpret these verses to imply that they should not even talk about other people's viewpoints, it can hardly be claimed that this is either a scriptural or doctrinal requirement for them. What it is telling them (which again I no longer agree with but it is what it says) is that they should not waste time disputing matters of genealogy, philosophy or foolish questions with brothers in the congregation who already 'know the truth' - not to disregard out of hand the differing viewpoints of "those on the outside" who have not yet taken in the knowledge that "means everlasting life".
You and me are not in that latter group any more so they can disregard our viewpoints quite happily!
What is it with people who take every word so personally? Or is it just some super sensitive Americans?
