Do Debaters here recognize and understand the desperate debate technique known as GISH GALLOP?

Factfinder

@Openminded

I think your point could be made without posting a link to a bias web site. Many people who debate on opposing sides argue from a position of emotion and the way they wish it was. You will find this on any given topic no matter the participants stated position of a topic.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I think your point could be made without posting a link to a bias web site.

@Factfinder

Okay thanks I get it. Just thought it relevant as Trump is a master at using this technique. And the clip with Kellyanne Conway was a perfect example.

I find it is being used quite a lot her on the site. It´s hard to stay on course, when youŕe being bombarded by rapidfire ¨facts¨.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I think your point could be made without posting a link to a bias web site.

Did you watch the video of Conway? Her goal seemingly was to catch Todd off guard spewing out line after line after line that had absolutely zilch, nada, to do with his question. 

I´m curious what you think about Gish Gallop? Have you noticed this? 

Openminded

Beware of the Gish Gallop.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/gish-gallop.html

Factfinder

@Openminded

I have heard Conway before, this particular video didn't interest me. She is what she is, a propogandist. If you say she meant to mislead, I take you at your word. The tactic of listing facts and sneaking in some type of fallacy designed to lead the person to some forgone conclusion is an age old tactic. I do like the catch phrase gish-gallop! Considering it's roots it's quite fitting.

Openminded

Argument Topic: The tactic of listing facts and sneaking in some type of fallacy designed to lead the person to some forgone conclusion is an age old tactic.

Actually the gish galloper does not list facts. 
To gish gallop is an attempt to overwhelm their opponent, catch them off guard,  by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or truth. Gish galloping prioritizes the number of fallacies you can throw out to overwhelm your opponent. And then they may sneak in a truth. You have that backwards.

Barnardot

@Openminded Well so far as this site goes the 3 resident persistent cheaters and liers are @just_sayin @Bogan @Joeseph who is really @Dee. They are Gish Gallopers all the time. The only thing is that they are not debaters. They are far from it and wouldnt know how to debate there way out of a paper bag thats been popped.

Factfinder

Okay @Openminded

It seemed to me one would have to have some legitimate facts in order for fallacy to take hold and lead the target to accepting the same falsehoods. Bottom line is you're right though. There are a number of debates where the goal seems to be to overwhelm the opponent with nonsense. 

Factfinder

Also, I don't understand the motives behind such tactics. Yeah, to win a campaign or hustle a few bucks, but what's the point in a forum like this  @Openminded?
They must know what they're doing and that won't persuade anyone so what, they just want to be the kid teasing everyone on the school ground?

John_C_87

@Openminded
Well I do not think the creation of the word or words has a United States Constitutional right in focus but it is a nice attempt to a new phrase. " Gish Callop"  New wave tempo as a distance of gate in a run.

Joeseph

@Openminded

Well so far as this site goes the 3 resident persistent cheaters and liers are @just_sayin @Bogan @Joeseph who is really @Dee.

Your obsession with Dee is scary 2 weeks since he left and you're still obsessing about him .......WOW! He really did a number on you.


 They are Gish Gallopers all the time. The only thing is that they are not debaters. They are far from it and wouldnt know how to debate there way out of a paper bag thats been popped.@Barnardot

The hilarious thing is all you do is call people" liers" and claim " dats a bow goose cite, ur sauces are are bi assed" 

You haven't once attempted debating you're just a troll obsessed with Dee

Openminded

Argument Topic: Also, I don't understand the motives behind such tactics. Yeah, to win a campaign or hustle a few bucks, but what's the point in a forum like this @Openminded? They must know what they're doing and that won't persuade anyone so what, they just want to be the kid teasing everyone on the school ground?

@Factfinder

Surely you can understand what drives someone to use this debate tactic especially in politics.

And the point? I´ve noticed its use on this site and have felt like I´ve been thrown into a boxing arena blindfolded and handcuffed.

It´s important for others to understand why it´s used, who tends to use it, and how it is used - to confuse and bamboozle people because that´s all they got to use. It´s important to recognize the Gish Gallop to either reject the debater immediately or prepare for the Gish Gallop which includes weeding out all the B_S and honing in on the topic at hand. Hard to do when someone is nonstop spewing out one liners.

And I believe you are wrong that it does not persuade one. It persuades many who are vulnerable, gullible and ignorant.

This is also particularly important given the political climate weŕe living in. 

Choose a candidate that knows what he/she is talking about. If a person running for a leadership position uses the Gish Gallop to enlighten citizens on what they stand for, but what they´ve said is a mind-boggling word salad, you should recognize the Gish Gallop as a B_S tactic meant to gaslight, sensationalize, intimidate, confuse, and control the conversation. We need to ask ourselves ¨Was this a cohesive and credible speech?¨

Those that use this tactic are likely 1) ignorant of the material presented to them and 2) operating from a very primitive stage in their growth.

Remember the ID, the Ego and the Superego? Well someone that Gish Gallops is likely operating from the most primitive level - the ID which is the impulsive and unconscious part of the psyche that responds immediately to basic urges, needs and desires.

In the case of Trump and his sycophants - the Gish Gallop is used to protect oneself from humiliation, win at all costs, and ultimately gain power/control. 

BEWARE OF THE GISH GALLOP

Factfinder

@Openminded

Okay I read up on Gish Gallop just to refresh my memory of what was going on with creationist debates when that phrase was coined. As those debates were going on they were being held in public venues so it soon became obvious creationism was simply trying to reach members of the audience, and not trying to persuade who they were debating. So it's the onlookers you have in mind that could be gullible and not the opponent because the opponent already knows they're being hit with Gish Gallop. Right? If so then you have persuaded me. The focus of my question was on primarily the debaters themselves. In that case I like to use the weak point rebuttal technique and move on.

Barnardot

@Joeseph ;You haven't once attempted debating you're just a troll obsessed with Dee

Thats what you think because you cant even seem to think out side your own lunch hour. I think the problem is that your absessed with your self and cant even see past your own dump hole. I like every one else who complained about you just want all the scum scrapped off this site. You will also be kicked off again and the other 2 trouble makers are not far behind. You have lost the plot so much that you dont even know who your talking to and Im sure that @Openminded is shaking his heed and thinking what the.

Factfinder

Openminded said:

@Factfinder

Surely you can understand what drives someone to use this debate tactic especially in politics.

And the point? I´ve noticed its use on this site and have felt like I´ve been thrown into a boxing arena blindfolded and handcuffed.

It´s important for others to understand why it´s used, who tends to use it, and how it is used - to confuse and bamboozle people because that´s all they got to use. It´s important to recognize the Gish Gallop to either reject the debater immediately or prepare for the Gish Gallop which includes weeding out all the B_S and honing in on the topic at hand. Hard to do when someone is nonstop spewing out one liners.

And I believe you are wrong that it does not persuade one. It persuades many who are vulnerable, gullible and ignorant.

This is also particularly important given the political climate weŕe living in. 

Choose a candidate that knows what he/she is talking about. If a person running for a leadership position uses the Gish Gallop to enlighten citizens on what they stand for, but what they´ve said is a mind-boggling word salad, you should recognize the Gish Gallop as a B_S tactic meant to gaslight, sensationalize, intimidate, confuse, and control the conversation. We need to ask ourselves ¨Was this a cohesive and credible speech?¨

Those that use this tactic are likely 1) ignorant of the material presented to them and 2) operating from a very primitive stage in their growth.

Remember the ID, the Ego and the Superego? Well someone that Gish Gallops is likely operating from the most primitive level - the ID which is the impulsive and unconscious part of the psyche that responds immediately to basic urges, needs and desires.

In the case of Trump and his sycophants - the Gish Gallop is used to protect oneself from humiliation, win at all costs, and ultimately gain power/control. 

BEWARE OF THE GISH GALLOP

You do realize both sides use various gish gallop style methods in their attempts to overwhelm the public with nonsense don't you? Especially during election years?

Joeseph

@Barnardot

Barndoor still going on 24 / 7 about Dee yet Dee is gone 3 weeks now. BTW I say who comes and goes on this site not you or your fellow trolls.

ZeusAres42

I am reminded of an interview with the mentalist Derren brown talking of a thing called bafflement where he states this a common tactic that a lot of politicians use. 

Factfinder

Hi @ZeusAres42

We just called it "pulling the wool over someone's eye". Lol Is this the interview you mentioned:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Darren+brown+on+bafflement&sca_esv=597475757&sxsrf=ACQVn0-_jx4P3v2JzVb6AjakBqb4hRwZ8A:1704968647738&ei=x8GfZY_ZLMfckPIPnsiy2A4&ved=0ahUKEwjP2OeUj9WDAxVHLkQIHR6kDOsQ4dUDCBA&oq=Darren+brown+on+bafflement&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGkRhcnJlbiBicm93biBvbiBiYWZmbGVtZW50SJOAAlDBLVixwAFwAXgBkAEAmAF_oAG1DKoBAzcuObgBDMgBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGLADwgIOEAAY5AIY1gQYsAPYAQHCAhMQLhiABBiKBRhDGMgDGLAD2AECwgIHECMYsAIYJ8ICBxAAGIAEGA3CAgYQABgHGB7CAgkQABiABBgNGArCAggQABiABBiiBMICCBAAGIkFGKIEwgIKECEYChigARjDBOIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBhK6BgYIARABGAm6BgYIAhABGAg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:13e7bec6,vid:tmszO1NoxmQ,st:0

Openminded

Argument Topic: You do realize both sides use various gish gallop style methods in their attempts to overwhelm the public with nonsense don't you? Especially during election years?

@Factfinder

Nah. There is a difference between the Gish Galloper and the fair Debater.
1) Gish Galloping is using a quantity of mostly falsehoods and unverified statements but may slip in a truth here and there. 
2) The fair debater uses mostly truths but may slip in a falsehood here or there.

So, I disagree that both sides use this extreme Gish Gallop tactic.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I am reminded of an interview with the mentalist Derren brown talking of a thing called bafflement where he states this a common tactic that a lot of politicians use

@ZeusAres42
I am reminded of an interview with the mentalist Derren brown talking of a thing called bafflement where he states this a common tactic that a lot of politicians use

Sorry, but I disagree with all the complacency on this topic. It is used more commonly now particularly by people whose goal is to win (and chaeat) at all costs. It´s used by all people, but politics has honed this skill in the past 8 years or more. The use of Gish Galloping is getting more and more normalized. 

Factfinder

@Openminded

We know you think  trump to be one who uses gish gallop all the time so two things: In your observations of both the political arena and on this debate site, would you say those who use gish gallop style tactics are vastly right leaning or left?

Are you saying slipping in "a falsehood here and there" is a fair tactic for a debater to use?

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

What I find much worse than GISH GALLOP is people labeling arguments as extreme, dismissing valid input due to race/sex (often white male), or accusations of bias or non factual material to avoid an actual response using critical thinking or reasoning.

At least with gish gallop you can still provide a response to the accusation.  Or you can ask, "That was a lot of material, is there a couple points you feel most strongly about I can respond to"

Debate, devils advocate, critical thinking, and the ability argue controversal opinions arent dying mainly due to gish gallop.  Its due to censorship and dismissal using what I stated above.

-Your a privledged white male
- You used CNN or FOX news info must be false
- Unreasonable inferences to strawman arguments.
-Extreme Right or Left dismissal
These to me have caused much greater harm to debate and the ability for us to progress with thr best ideas.

Second to that Googling to confirm your idea and posting the 3 best headlines citing feeling proud they found "sources".  People think theyre experts after reading a headline.
Ideas should always be challenged using your own critical thinking.
For example of this, I provide the wage gap. $0.77 on thr dollar can easily be debunked with a couple questions and basic statistical knowledge.

Gish gallop is pretty easy to deal with. Accusing nefarious Adhominem of the opposition and loss of critical thinking is destroying us.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

A friend once told me that, as a man, I cannot understand how strongly discriminated black women in the US are. I asked her why me being a man does not allow me to understand discrimination of black women, but her being Asian does. To her credit, she accepted the rebuttal: she is a good thinker who listens to criticisms of her arguments and repairs them.

The whole idea that having a certain trait makes one unable to understand something pertaining to people with a different trait is absolutely insane. Taken to its logical end, no one can understand anything about anyone other than themselves, because everyone has a unique brain that perceives the world in a unique way.

A related idea is that people having a certain trait will want to speak for that trait against other traits. That if I am a man, then I am somehow naturally predisposed to want to control women, and not doing so requires me to relinquish my masculinity. Therefore every time a man says something against a proposal that would benefit women more than men, it must be because of that inherent drive to control them. A man cannot say it based on a larger principle applicable also to reverse proposals that would benefit men more than women - it has to be that inherent sexism.

It is curious how enlightenment brought about the idea that everyone is a thinking individual capable of understanding everything anyone else is, and nowadays one of the predominant ideologies argues the exact opposite, that the space of understanding and relatability is strongly segmented.

Factfinder

@MichaelElpers

Ideas should always be challenged using your own critical thinking.

Thank you!!! Every person in every media outlet or factchecking organization has biases. We can only resolve issues in a meaningful significant way by applying our own critical thinking. I just wanted to think you for your post! 

ZeusAres42

Critical thinking is not concluding an argument has less merit simply because the other party is biased. Remove bias from the equation and then all we are left with is the argument. And the the strength of an argument rests on a number of conditions such as truth, plausibility, and logic. 

Openminded

Argument Topic: We know you think trump to be one who uses gish gallop all the time so two things: In your observations of both the political arena and on this debate site, would you say those who use gish gallop style tactics are vastly right leaning or left? Are you saying slipping in "a falsehood here and there" is a fair tactic for a debater to use?

@Factfinder

Well admittedly, yes, I believe trump to be a master at this B_S tactic to cover for his ignorance. It worked for him and to put it simply people tend to follow their leader. Kellyanne Conway, MTG and Jim Jordan are masters of Gish Gallop. Have you ever listened to Jim Jordan rattle on with machine gun rapidity? Uttering one falsehood after another? It´s amazing. So yup. The Right wing definitely holds the patent on Gish Gallop politicking.

By ¨a falsehood here and there¨, I meant an unverified claim. No, it´s not fair, but it´s definitely more fair than the Gish Gallop style of using a verified truth once or twice mixed in with mostly unverified claims.

ZeusAres42

As for gish galloping, the fallacious reasoning rests on the observers of the debate taking place whereby they might see the gish galloper as the stronger party. Here is an example of gish galloping: 

Person A: "Climate change isn't a real concern because there's natural temperature variability, scientists can't agree on the causes, it's just a way for governments to control us, and alternative energy sources are too expensive. Plus, some scientists argue that the Earth is cooling."

Person A presents a series of claims, making it challenging for Person B to respond comprehensively within a reasonable time frame.

To the trained eye this is relatively easy to spot. But generally speaking most people are not of the trained eye. 

MayCaesar

In mathematics, one error in a proof invalidates the entire proof. If in the logical chain A => B => C => D => E the C => D part is shown to be wrong, then the whole argument falls apart. The person offering the proof should either patch the chain up, or concede the argument.

This is how I treat debates as well. The more claims you make, the higher the chance that one of them is false is. Pointing out that it is false invalidates your entire argument, and until you have patched it up and revised your claim, there is no point talking about anything else.
"Gish-gallopers" make their opponents' lives easily: most of their claims are hogwash, and it is sufficient to only point that one of them is hogwash to demolish their argument.

This is also why I am very careful about what I claim. Real language is not mathematics, and it is very difficult to make a factual statement that is accurate on the fly. You have to put a lot of effort into your texts in order to avoid making endless blunders. Whenever I think of making a claim, the very first question I ask myself is, "What if I wanted to prove this claim wrong? How could I respond to it?" Most claims do not survive this first test and have to be discarded. 
As such, I frequently add "I think", "it seems to me", "it appears highly likely that" and so on to my claims. Often I cannot be 100% sure that my claim is logically substantiated, but I also cannot immediately see a refutation of this claim, and intuition tells me that the claim can survive most criticisms one might think of throwing at it - so I predicate it by pointing out that I allow for the possibility of it being wrong. And if it is proven wrong, I have no trouble admitting that my intuition failed me.

On the other hand, people who just throw claims around and then complain about them being examined too closely - are lousy. Those are people who you cannot trust with anything, because they have no respect for accuracy. The kind of people who wash dishes in 30 seconds, and then everyone has to taste the dishwashing liquid. The kind of people who write a chunk of code quickly, and then the whole team has to debug the code for days because there is a special case that arises frequently that breaks the code and that the programmer did not consider.
If you do not ask yourself what might be wrong in what you are doing... if you just throw mud around and hope that some of it sticks... then the value of everything you do is low, the probability of failure is high, and the trust people have towards your ability to do or say anything correctly is non-existent.

This is why I love teaching, by the way: by teaching students the material that you believe is obvious to you now, you come back to the first principles, but with a fresh eye, and see if your understanding of those first principles needs to be revised. So many times a student would ask a question that I would realize I do not have an answer to, that would get me thinking - and eventually realizing that my intuition on this was misplaced, or my understanding of this definition was slightly off. It is often hard to see your own errors for you look for them with the very mind that made them in the first place - but getting an unexpected input from the outside is much more likely to expose them.

I think that people are often far too eager to get into the woods of something and skip a lot of details and nuance at the beginning of the journey. Someone who wants to become a professional cyclist spends a couple of days learning cycling, then jumps on the bicycle and starts putting in the miles - never thinking about their technique. They might have a completely messed up foot work that could be fixed in a few minutes of close examination and then a few hours of targeted practice, and that would improve their speed and endurance drastically - but as this is a very annoying and humiliating work, they choose instead to double down on their poor technique. With enough persistency they can still go pretty far in the sport, but it is like driving a car with the brake pedal slightly pressed at all times: you can drive as far as you want, but your experience is going to be miserable.

Next time you see that kid wearing ugly glasses who is trying to memorize a multiplication table of up to 100x100... Realize that this kid is going to develop intuition for numbers that might get him at the top of Wall Street one day. It is not just a pointless exercise. This kind of grounding work, building the base by exploring various combinations of simple concepts - is what allows one to then jump much further than almost anyone else.

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Excellent example. But we should keep in mind if we walk away from the gish galloper no progress in resolving an issue can be made. On the other hand if we simply focus on the weakest link and refuse to address other concerns  listed until that link is resolved, then the door opens for progress. It seems if we truly invest our minds in the ability to find solutions through the power of debate and open discussion, that would be the better way to go.

Factfinder

@Openminded

The fact that you can not see the gish gollop on both sides is disturbing. In light of the fact that worse falsehoods are prevalent on BOTH sides of the isle makes it even more disturbing.

Dreamer

Firehose of falsehoods also known as gish gallop is a soviet technique along side of whataboutism. I've seen the user Factfinder use whataboutism at least twice and is an obvious troll.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/watch-john-oliver-break-down-trumps-three-dangerous-manipulation-tactics-116113/

Factfinder

@Dreamer

Yes I must be a troll because I successfully debunk your baseless nonsense.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Firehose of falsehoods also known as gish gallop is a soviet technique along side of whataboutism. I've seen the user Factfinder use whataboutism at least twice and is an obvious troll.

@Dreamer
Hysterical. Thank you Dreamer. 
Yup - Three other techniques to be aware of: Delegitimizing the media, Whataboutism and Trolling.
And of course Gish Gallop - thank you .
I think we should come up with a complete list of deceitful debate techniques to watch out for. I´m often drawn into a troll conversation and whataboutism and I get mad at myself for being manipulated. 

Dreamer

@Openminded

Awww, you don't have to get mad at yourself. The trolls are the ones deliberately making you angry. That's a major part of why I mute them, to avoid getting too angry.

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer ;

From my experience so far factfinder is no troll. None of his behaviour in thread is reminiscent of trolling. 

There is another thing to be aware of also which is the cognitive bias the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (AKA frequency illusion).

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@Dreamer ;

From my experience so far factfinder is no troll. None of his behaviour in thread is reminiscent of trolling. 

There is another thing to be aware of also which is the cognitive bias the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (AKA frequency illusion).

I agree.  I don't think @factfinder is a troll.  Instead I think that what we see is that when someone can't defend an argument they will often attack the one who makes the argument.  

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

Firehose of falsehoods also known as gish gallop is a soviet technique along side of whataboutism. I've seen the user Factfinder use whataboutism at least twice and is an obvious troll.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/watch-john-oliver-break-down-trumps-three-dangerous-manipulation-tactics-116113/

First, to someone with a hammer, everything is a nail. @Factfinder is one of the few debaters around here who actually puts effort into his arguments and listens to his opponents. You, @Dreamer, are not one of them.

Second, the Soviets absolutely did not make use of "gish gallop". For all of its flaws, the Soviet government had some respect for the intellect of its population, and its propaganda was far more sophisticated than anything your ilk on the West does. The Soviet system was building "the new man", and intellect was an essential part of that man - hence Soviet citizens were required to study sophisticated works of Marx and Lenin, the most popular magazines were those on science and technology, and the party leaders' arguments were multi-faceted and fairly difficult to refute.
Socialists on the West look very pitiful compared to that... They treat their followers as infants and appeal to their lowest instincts, rather than trying to persuade them logically - and the infants... sorry, the followers deliver consistently!

Openminded

@Dreamer

For the life of me, I cannot understand what a person gets out of trolling.
You have to be of very weak character to troll.

ZeusAres42

Openminded said:

@Dreamer

For the life of me, I cannot understand what a person gets out of trolling.
You have to be of very weak character to troll.

If you are going to accuse people of being trolls then at least provide evidence. There is none of that in this thread. @Openminded. Also, @Dreamer has turned Gish Gallop into something it isn't. Did you learn anything from that link you posted earlier from logically fallacious? 

Factfinder

Openminded said:

@Dreamer

For the life of me, I cannot understand what a person gets out of trolling.
You have to be of very weak character to troll.

I agree 100%. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Some people will never see the faults they have and will always see them in others. That said I know who @openminded aimed her last comments at, me, but I don't care. The content of her words I fully agreed with. How's that for irony! 

MayCaesar

It has been my observation that the least capable debaters are also usually the most aggressive on the accusation front. Someone who has a lot of thinking on the subject done has no reason to scoop down to the level of calling others "trolls". It is instead a cop-out tactic of those who want to convince themselves that they should not have to respond to hard arguments.

For example, @Openminded on numerous occasions accused me of misogyny. Anyone who knows me somewhat well would laugh at the assertion: I am someone who believes that the sexiest traits a woman can have are personal strength, assertiveness and independence; someone who believes that a happy woman is one who has a great career and a life full of adventures, and who does not need a man to support her, but instead wants an equal partner to share the exciting journey with.
But why did she do so? Was it something I said that berated the opposite sex? No, it was a couple of nuanced arguments exposing hypocrisy in her position.

Empirically, people who get off by saying nasty things about others are incidentally people who do not have much else of substance to say.

Barnardot