This study of logical fallacies, errors, faults, illicit attacks, blunders and other critical deficiencies in interrogation and reply has been written in the tradition of informal fallacies in logic. It presents 139 case studies; some of these come from political debates and some from interviews, legal cross-examinations and other sources. Walton uses these examples of tricky, aggressive, argumentative or fallacious questions to develop guidelines for criticizing "questionable" questions (and in some cases their replies) on logical grounds. Among the types of problematic question analyzed are: the traditional so-called fallacy of many questions, illustrated by the famous "Have you stopped beating your wife?"; black and white questions; terminologically loaded questions and questions containing personal attacks. These and other types of problematic questions, as well as evasive replies and replying to a question with a question are studied. Critical errors of reasoning are identified and analyzed by developing context-based, normative models of reasonable dialogue in which a questioner must have freedom to ask informative and probing questions and the respondent must be constrained to give reasonably direct, not overly-evasive answers. In this era of negative and evasive political campaigning, with candidates employing skilful tactics of manipulating public opinion to assure election rather than taking clear stands and seriously debating issues in an informed and sincere manner, "Question-Reply Argumentation" is relevant reading for those who take democracy seriously. The methods used reflect a shift from earlier semantically based theories to current, pragmatic, dialogue-based models and will be of interest to logicians and linguists. The volume's conclusions should challenge some current preconceptions.