Socratic Logic working against him...

So far all that I've read from Socrates (via Plato) there's been a recurring theme. When I read Euthyphro, it reminded me of the Symposium (I had to read that last year) and noticed that Socrates' argument style was exactly the same. Also, I noticed that you don't really get a clear answer in the end, although you may get closer, or find out what the answer is not. It seems that Socrates doesn't really aim to find a lasting and clear cut definition of the subject at hand, although he seems to insist that there is one, but he really is teaching about the pursuit of truth. He shows his "students" how one can use logic and reasoning to pursue truth and how one can be a rational person. I'm not sure that there is a defined way to be rational, or that truth can be found. In fact, I don't think truth can be found, or that there really is any objective truth, which is fine by me. But either way, that seems to be Socrates' MO. Socrates sort of contradicts himself because he insists that wisdom is the knowledge that you know nothing but at the same time suggests that using logic is the way to get to an objective answer. So I'm not sure if he's saying that the world is subjective, or that there are objective answers that no one will be able to know.

"But Socrates, I have no way of telling you what I have in mind, for whatever proposition we put forward goes around and refuses to stay put where we establish it." - Euthyphro

Socrates is trying to show Euthyphro that if an argument "moves" then one should follow it wherever it leads and not stick with something that has been proven false. He is teaching the art of "logic" to Euthyphro.
Socratic Logic Working Against Him: During the trial, his style works against him because his reasoning only serves as an example of how to get to truth through ration. He doesn't, however, address his subject (innocence) with the proper importance.

"One thing I do ask and beg of you, gentlemen: if you hear me making my defense in the same kind of language as I am accustomed to use in the marketplace by the banker's tables, where many of you have heard me elsewhere, do not be surprised or create a disturbance on that account." - Socrates

Arrogance: I agree that Socrates was a pretty arrogant person, that's not to say he should have been punished or that he was not also wise. I think that using the Oracle as justification for his modesty isn't really effective because Socrates was too smart to take all of that seriously, and I think he was just using that as a story to prove his point about wisdom.

"...in my investigation in the service of the god I found that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable." - Socrates

He starts out talking about being in the god's service but ends up with an observation on human nature.

My problem with Socrates' and his use of his own method is that:

-He leads his student with questions but does so in a way that's demeaning and doesn't let them learn on their own, only see their mistakes. Mistakes are valuable but in order for it to completely stick I think that the student must figure out something for hirself, rather than just agreeing and recognizing the fault in their arguments. A good teacher should lead, but not do everything. At least in the Symposium, the other characters spoke first. But then the conversation with Socrates always seems to consist of:

Socrates: "...or is that not correct?"
Euthyphro: "Yes that's correct"
Socrates: "Is this not true Euthyphro?"
Euthyphro: "Of course it's true Socrates"
Socrates: "...would you like me to continue making you look like an idiot?"
Euthyphro: "Please sir, may I have another..."

-Lastly, my problem, more with Plato than Socrates, is that the characters (other than Socrates) seem so weak, and I'm wondering whether that's an accurate representation of his normal audience, or is he just repressing them. For me, I am constantly seeing little flaws with Socrates' reasoning. Some things are taken out of context, some things are jumps in logic that may or may not be called for. As the person "talking" to Socrates I would jump all over those fractures in his arguments because it might change the outcome significantly, and I don't understand why all the people that Socrates talks to are so helpless in their own defense. All arguments seem to be one sided assuming that Socrates is god of all things wise. Usually the best way of finding a better answer is taking two arguments, chipping away the bad bit s, and then having the rest crystalize (the dialectic method) and then repeating the process. This is shown in the Symposium, but it all boils down to the same thing in the end. Socrates' arguments are infallible and his logic is perfect. This may or may not be the case. I respect his wisdom and intelligence, and I don't think he's completely in the wrong concerning his teaching method, especially cause i have no idea what "in the right" would be. But I don't think Socrates is omnipotent.