The “Gish Gallop,” a common tactic in unstructured debates and talking head shows is: “...a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, validity, or relevance of those arguments. For example, a person using the Gish gallop might attempt to support their stance by bringing up, in rapid succession, a large number of vague claims, anecdotal statements, misinterpreted facts, and irrelevant comments.”
- https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/
We've all been on the wrong end of one of these excremental fire hoses, and it's not pleasant. But it's not a particularly difficult tactic to counter, if you keep your head, and remember one simple rule:
It's not about being right, it's about being fast.
The gish galloper is counting on the fact that it's a lot easier to make up a lie, or an irrelevant or misleading statement than it is to explain why the statement is irrelevant, untrue, or misleading. So by piling on the bullshit faster than you can clean it up, then criticizing the fact that you didn't clean up all their bullshit, they appear to have “won,” at least to the sort of people to whom forcefulness is more convincing than thoughtfulness.
Since the Gish Gallop is so ubiquitous you might think that it's a very successful rhetorical tactic. And often, it is. This is because of the nature of the sort of people that would never use such a dishonest tactic. We want to see ourselves as rational, careful and deliberative. The gish galloper is not at all concerned about getting the facts right or arguing fairly or even considering the other person's ideas. The gish galloper is about “winning” the debate.
If you are, and I sincerely hope you are, the sort of person who finds such behavior reprehensible, and an abuse of intellectual exchange, you forfeit certain advantages to the gish galloper:
You're not willing to lie. They are.
You're willing to consider someone else's points. They aren't.
You're going to consider what you say before you say it. They won't.
In terms of “winning” a debate in front of people who are not schooled in the subject at hand (most people) or in how to frame and present an honest argument (almost everyone) these are serious disadvantages.
It always appears more decisive to be making unequivocal statements - “A is A!” and such statements have a superficial veneer of honesty. Of course, liars seldom lie equivocally. A liar will not usually say, “A is probably A,” since that encourages you to consider other possibilities, which is what the liar certainly doesn't want you doing.
If you are explaining, rather than exclaiming, you are probably losing the debate in the eyes of the public. Refutation of an untrue claim not only takes more time than making such a claim, it just doesn't look as cool. If you are citing evidence, studies, statistics and sources, it's hard to keep from sounding like a nerd. And it keeps you from making points of your own.
You may think that refutation and counter-argument are the way to answer this barrage of bullshit, but you will probably find that for each bit of rubbish they spew, they have three more irrelevant spitballs in reserve. They won't even acknowledge your correct answer, they will just throw more, and more, and more.
You want to argue the right way. They don't want to argue at all, in the sense of weighing and exchanging of ideas. They are there for one purpose – to make you look bad, and by extension, to discredit what you say or stand for. You're trying to play chess, they're in a food fight.
Now, gish galloping right back at them may seem tempting, but even if you are better at high-velocity rubbishing than the other, what do you have at the end? A waste of your time. The most likely result is that you both end up looking like shouty six-year olds. Is a draw really the best we can do?
No. It is possible, even easy to unhorse the gish galloper. And you can do it without descending to their level.
The answer is an ancient tool of philosophic inquiry and classical rhetoric – asking good questions.
The weakness of the gish gallop is in it's “strength,” they have to say a lot of things, make a lot of statements in a short period of time. Instead of trying to bat them all back with counter-argument and evidence, pick one that you know to be false. Just one. For starters.
Then, “You said that immigrants are causing a crime wave. Do you have any evidence to prove that?”
Rather than you providing the evidence to refute them – which, remember is not your responsibility; the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion, make them provide proof.
They will try to avoid this. If they just continue making unsupported statements, repeat the question.
If they say, “It's common sense!” or “It's obvious!” You respond, “Then you shouldn't have any problem producing proof.” Then repeat the question.
If they start slandering you, or saying childish things like, “That's what I'd expect from a [X] like you!” then repeat...the...question.
If they lie about their proof, claiming, for example that “some studies show,” or “people are saying,” you respond, “What studies are those? Which people?”
If they simply fabricate evidence, misrepresenting a source or making one up out of whole cloth (which believe me, they are not hesitant to do) pin them to it. “So you're saying that study X says Y. It doesn't.”
And then immediately ask them to provide proof for their next ridiculous statement. Don't get into the “that's not a good source” game. That's for people who deserve to be taken seriously.
You're doing two things here: First, you've moved the discussion onto your ground – providing and weighing credible evidence. Secondly, you've restated the problem. Rather than letting the discussion be about refuting an avalanche of excrement, make the gish galloper prove all their absurd statements. This turns their tactic on its head. Now it is the galloper who is burdened with explanations and proofs.
It has often happened, when I have used the “asking good questions” tactic to disrupt a gish galloper, that they get louder, talk faster, interrupt and basically attempt to bully the conversation. This is crude, and an invariably fatal mistake if you don't allow yourself to be baited into playing that game. I have been known, in cruel moments, to say, “You seem upset. Do you need a moment to collect your thoughts before answering my question? Which was...”
At this point, they look like what they are – a childish, ranting, bibbling dork incapable of serious adult conversation.
And in the eyes of the audience, you are the cool, reasonable one. And they come away knowing that there's not a shred of proof to their tsunami of sewage. And you don't get any of it on you.
Of course, there's seldom a good reason to give such a person the respect inherent in sharing a debate with them. If you don't expect good argument, don't engage in argument. You only legitimatize them – give them intellectual credit they don't deserve.
But should you find yourself in the arena with a poo-flinging debate dork, keep asking questions. Make them explain. Make them justify.
It's unlikely in the extreme, but maybe you'll teach them something about how functional adults discuss.
Thank you, Kit!
This essay is very helpful. Thank you!