Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop should not be confused with the argumentum ad nauseam, in which the same point is repeated many times. In a Gish Gallop, many bullshit points are given all at once.

Political cartoon accusing Mitt Romney of Gish Galloping.

Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

* Logical fallacy
* Syllogism
* Argument

General logic

* Equivocation
* Overprecision
* Imprecision fallacy
* Rogerian argument
* Appeal to accomplishment
* Viés de sobrevivência

Bad logic

* Release the data
* Argument from morality
* What's the harm (logical fallacy)
* On the spot fallacy
* Relativist fallacy
* Whataboutism

v \- t \- e

“”If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!

—Albert Einstein on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. It's essentially a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the Galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping to the next (especially if they cite from a pre-concocted list of Gallop arguments), a refutation of the same Gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again). The tedium inherent in untangling a Gish Gallop typically allows for very little "creative license" or vivid rhetoric (in deliberate contrast to the exciting point-dashing central to the Galloping), which in turn risks boring the audience or readers, further loosening the refuter's grip on the crowd.

This is especially true in that the Galloper need only win a single one out of all his component arguments in order to be able to cast doubt on the entire refutation attempt. For this reason, the refuter must achieve a 100% success ratio (with all the yawn-inducing elaboration that goes with such precision). Thus, Gish Galloping is frequently employed (with particularly devastating results) in timed debates. The same is true for any time- or character-limited debate medium, including Twitter and newspaper editorials.

Examples of Gish Gallops are commonly found online, in crank "list" articles that claim to show "X hundred reasons for (or against) Y". At the highest levels of verbosity, with dozens upon dozens or even hundreds of minor arguments interlocking, each individual "reason" is — upon closer inspection — likely to consist of a few sentences at best.

Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings, and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter. There may also be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments present in the Gallop, which are — like the Gish Gallop itself — specifically designed to be brief to pose, yet take a long time to unravel and refute.

However, Gish Gallops aren't impossible to defeat — just tricky (not to say near-impossible for the unprepared). Upon closer inspection, many of the allegedly stand-alone component arguments may turn out to be nothing but thinly veiled repetitions or simple rephrasings of the same basic points — which only makes the list taller, not more correct (hence; "proof by verbosity"). This essential flaw in the Gallop means that a skilled rebuttal of one component argument may in fact be a rebuttal to many.

## Contents

* 1 Origins and history
* 2 Types
* 2.1 In spoken debate
* 2.2 In written debate
* 3 Why it's a problem
* 3.1 Spurious argument from authority
* 3.2 Use of poor evidence
* 3.3 Effort involved in refutation
* 3.4 Avoidance of introspection
* 3.5 Misuse of statistics
* 4 How to respond
* 5 Examples
* 5.1 Pseudoscience
* 5.2 Religion
* 5.3 Politics
* 5.4 Skepticism
* 5.5 TV shows
* 6 Argumentum ad tl;dr
* 7 Abusers of this technique
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 10 Notes
* 11 References

## Origins and history[edit]

The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in the 1990s, and is named after the behavior of creationist Duane Gish[1] in formal debates:

“”On the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?" or something similar, and show that their "model" is faulty. But in a debate, the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist Gallops along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.

Creationists are fond of it; see "101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe" or the various lists of creationist scientists. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes".

After Duane Gish died, other ~~cranks~~ commentators have been known for employing personalized variants of the Gish Gallop, such as the Trump Tirade[2] and the Alex Avalanche. Trump henchman Steve Bannon coined the phrase flood the zone with shit to refer to this tactic for attacking the media.[3]

“”The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.

—Steve Bannon[4]

The phrase could equally be applied to Trump's penchant for issuing a shitload of executive orders upon inauguration as president, many of which are pie-in-the-sky wishes or functionally just press releases, with others potentially doing serious harm.[5]

## Types[edit]

Gish Gallops can be sorted into spoken and written types. Both have different advantages and disadvantages (for both the Galloper and the Gallopee).

### In spoken debate[edit]

The formal debating term for this is spreading.[6][note 1] Because debates are timed, the technique arose as a way to throw as much bullshit into one's speaking time as possible, leaving an opponent no choice but to ignore multiple talking points. In response, some debate judges limit the number of arguments a debater can make, as well as time, and opponents and moderators often try to keep people on topic as closely as possible. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet, or where creationists control the environment), such techniques are remarkably common. Any audience whose consciousness isn't quite raised to the technique may mistake it for a vast breadth of knowledge on a subject.

As Gary Fine put it in Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture:[8]:63

> It is now common for negative teams [against the topic of the debate] to attempt to win [debate] rounds by "spreading" their affirmative [for the topic of the debate]: presenting as many arguments as they can in their constructive [opening] speeches in the hopes that their opponents may not answer one argument ("drop it"), leaving it on the flow [a chart of arguments made within the debate] for the judge to base the[ir] decision on. Negative teams have the advantage of being able to focus on selected affirmative arguments, while, in general, affirmative teams must respond to every negative argument. Some negative teams present a dozen different arguments with numerous subpoints, none well developed, but each an argument to which the affirmative team must respond. Many debaters understandably feel that this strategy is unfair and 'a scare tactic'. In the process, the round becomes filled with arguments that are not fully developed, teams talk past each other, and the round becomes hard for judges (and opponents) to flow [fill in that chart of arguments made in the round].

For inexperienced live debaters, in the public or academic setting, spreading can be a difficult tactic to respond to. In particular, it relies on making numerous points that are difficult to follow individually, often on a sufficiently wide variety of points an opponent will likely not have the working knowledge of in order to respond to it. The most effective (or in some cases, only) way to respond to it is to press through the fog of bad presentation, following these points individually so that they can be lumped together based on their respective, individually weak arguments, and then dismantled in groups, and maintain as a broad knowledge base for situations where research can't be easily consulted. On the whole, most of the difficulty of dealing with it is due to the learning curve — it can definitely be overcome with practice.

Donald Trump had longstanding experience in spewing forth a torrent of bullshit.[9] In July 2024, he used this tactic against an ill-prepared Joe Biden in their presidential debate.[10]

### In written debate[edit]

“”Cite a giant wall of text, or a three hour long [Y]ou[T]ube video, and then claim it as irrefutable proof.

When they ask for the relevant excerpt, whine about how it's not your job to do the research for them.

When they go through the video and start explaining why the video is wrong, accuse them of cherry picking […] because they aren't addressing the "important" arguments.

When they ask you what the important arguments are, insist that it's not your job to do the research for them.

And… repeat.

—LRonPaul2012[11]

In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved — see the examples below. The individual points must also be fairly terse, so that each point individually can be easy to refute. Writing a single paragraph or two to refute, say, "How come there are still monkeys?" is easy enough. But combined, a Gish Gallop might run to the same length as an essay of several thousand words, as each point requires in-depth deconstruction, refutation and evidence, whereas the initial assertion needs to be just that, an assertion.

This provides insight into the motives of the Galloper. By using a quantity of arguments as a quality itself, a Gish Gallop tries to create the illusion of authority and weight of evidence. It is effectively style over substance. If brevity and ease of understanding were the aim, then they would be better off with a smaller number of points, like "the best five reasons" or "the top ten arguments" as opposed to lists of hundreds. If, on the other hand, the aim was a coherent and thorough argument (as suggested by the word count), then the purpose would be best served by using the thousands of words expended in the Gallop to make a full essay, with each point expanded and elaborated on to ensure it was thoroughly argued.

For example, in "77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage", the overall word count is around 2,300 — the size of a substantial essay that would include references, quotes, definitions, asides, and thoroughly unpacked terms. Yet the list of reasons itself contains no such things — it is mostly repetitive points on the same vague theme masquerading as separate reasons. Citations aren't given, reasons aren't expanded upon, they are merely left hanging despite the word count being available. In short, "77 reasons" don't have to be actually reasons, but the point is to provide 77 of them.

To supporters, the illusion works,[note 2] but those who disagree with the Galloper's points often find the repetitive assertions and non-explanations tedious.

## Why it's a problem[edit]

### Spurious argument from authority[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Appeal to authority

“”A fool throws a stone into a well and it requires a hundred wise men to get it out again.[12]

“”…they all muddy their water so it can seem deep.
| Original in German:

Sie sind mir auch nicht reinlich genug: sie trüben Alle ihr Gewässer, dass es tief scheine.

—Friedrich Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra[13]:140[14]

The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as it appears to paint the Galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects (in which case it may take several actual experts in multiple fields to properly debunk the Gallop) or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously, it presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is one reason why many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions.

### Use of poor evidence[edit]

It is often successfully combined with the "point refuted a thousand times" (PRATT). The Gallop must consist of as many points as possible, and even old and worn-out arguments are useful in overwhelming the respondent and bamboozling the audience. The technique also takes advantage of the one single proof fallacy, since if a respondent only manages to refute 99 out of 100 points, there is still one point that "proves" the Galloper correct. The Galloper takes to heart the advice (commonly misattributed to Joseph Stalin) that "Quantity has a quality all its own."

### Effort involved in refutation[edit]

“”The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

—programmer Alberto Brandolini[15]

Refuting a Gish Gallop is hard. Not because it's a well-formed argument that forces you to reconsider your worldview in a new light, a process taking critical thought over a long span of time. Not at all. It's hard because there's so fucking much to refute. Every claim probably requires at minimum one Google search, a writeup of what was found, and a link to the source. Conversely, making the claim only requires one of those steps: the writeup itself. And if the Gish Gallop itself seems to have some substance, this process becomes much harder: each claim's evidence must be thoroughly debunked. As such, the debunker must understand both the claim and why it's bullshit. The claimaint need only recite the claim.

All of this is compounded once further if the Gish Galloper chooses to respond to the rebuttal. The Galloper need only win on one issue to claim victory. Thus, they can attack where their evidence is strongest and/or their opponent's evidence is weakest and thus distort the debate. Even though the rebuttal has won on the vast substance of the debate, the Galloper can play up any failures of the rebuttal as "critical flaws" or "central failures" that make everything else invalid. As such, the rebutter must either (1) make their initial rebuttal so ironclad that it cannot be debated, which is incredibly time-consuming, or (2) fight an unfair second debate after they have already exhausted themselves while winning the first debate.

And worst of all: when the first Gish Gallop is completely rebutted, the Galloper may simply produce a second Gish Gallop, repeating this whole process once more.

Psychologist Brian Earp once described how a hypothetical researcher, Lord Voldemort, could swamp the scientific literature in favor of a certain medical procedure. As he wrote:[16]

> A similar phenomenon can play out in debates in medicine. In the case of Lord Voldemort, the trick is to unleash so many fallacies, misrepresentations of evidence, and other misleading or erroneous statements — at such a pace, and with such little regard for the norms of careful scholarship and/or charitable academic discourse — that your opponents, who do, perhaps, feel bound by such norms, and who have better things to do with their time than to write rebuttals to each of your papers, face a dilemma. Either they can ignore you, or they can put their own research priorities on hold to try to combat the worst of your offenses. It’s a lose-lose situation. Ignore you, and you win by default. Engage you, and you win like the pig in the proverb who enjoys hanging out in the mud.

### Avoidance of introspection[edit]

Let us assume that the Galloper is Galloping in good faith. They genuinely believe every word of the nonsense they spew. It may be that they recognize that they cannot weave their ideology into one coherent mass — that it is flawed and has contradictions. But they are too invested to ever let it go. The Gish Gallop — spewing out a point and then quickly moving on — might be a preservation mechanism in the face of facts you don't like. As Ryan Mackey writes in The Great Internet Conspiracy:[17]

> Debunkers and skeptics have long held that the Gish Gallop is a tactic designed to frustrate opposition and create the illusion of controversy, which it certainly does. However, the behavior may also be a cause rather than a symptom. The rapid change of topics also allows a conspiracy theorist to avoid an undesirable topic or uncomfortable fact before it leaves any lasting impression, moving on instead to ground that feels safer until that too is abandoned, and so on.

> If this is one's response to any and all criticism, we have every reason to expect some holes and inconsistencies in one's recollection. Short-term memory fades. We sometimes need to apply special practices to remember things. The Gish Gallop is the exact opposite, a technique not to remember, a means to permanently avoid or repress something we wish to forget. Hence we may argue with a conspiracy theorist endlessly, finding ourselves retracing old ground with nauseating consistency.

### Misuse of statistics[edit]

Not only may the arguments contained within the Gish Gallop misuse statistics, but the case for the Gish Gallop itself may make fallacious use of statistics. For example, in Conservapedia's Counterexamples to Evolution, the claim is made that "even if there is merely a 10% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct… then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 1%". This is flawed logic in at least two ways. For one, probabilities given for arguments almost certainly emerge fully formed from a rectum, and could be much lower (e.g. zero). In addition, calculations such as the one described assume that all the probabilities are completely independent, which is untrue for practically all Gish Gallops, given that all the arguments are related to a common theme. Essentially, the claim commits the countless counterfeits fallacy.[18]

## How to respond[edit]

There are several ways to rebut a Gish Gallop:

1. Gish Rebuttal: Go toe-to-toe and rebut every individual argument. This is the most difficult method (since every point is in contention). Potential pitfalls include the fact that if the rebuttal features even one error, the Galloper can seize on that (see "Single Flaw Rebuttal") and claim all rebuttals are similarly flawed. Extensive and authoritative take-downs may also strain the attention span of the audience. Even the best arguments are worthless if they are never heard.
2. Small Sample Rebuttal: Select a portion of their arguments (first 10, random 10, etc.) and rebut that. This is the second most difficult method (since many points are in contention). This has the benefit of casting doubt on the quality of the Galloper's remaining arguments as being similarly flawed. It is also less likely to drain the attention of the audience than a point-by-point analysis. But, it also leaves the rebuttal open to accusations of cherry picking, and still requires more effort in rebuttal than the Gish Galloper used in the first place.
3. Overriding Theme Rebuttal: Attempt to identify an overriding theme or essential fact that unites some or all of the points of the Gish Gallop, and attack that. The advantage of this approach is that it can attack several arguments at once by undermining the common premise of them all. It is also most likely to force the Galloper to engage in debate on your terms, because they are more likely motivated by some emotional or logical core of beliefs than by any one of myriad facts in the Gish Gallop.
4. Best Point Rebuttal (1): Ask the Galloper to select and summarize the "best" proof and debate that. This is one of the easier methods since only one point is debated and the burden of proof is shifted to the Galloper. It is also more likely to result in a collaborative discussion that could change minds because it forces the Galloper to consider what is actually important to them, rather than seeing right or wrong as an abstract quantum of proof. However, this method depends on the Galloper actively engaging with the rebuttal and putting effort into defending their arguments, which is generally antithetical to the Gish Gallop in the first place. The Galloper can avoid engaging by arguing that all the other points are good enough to win, in effect accusing you of asking for one single proof.
5. Best Point Rebuttal (2): Select the strongest argument the Galloper presents, rebut it, and call it a day. Dismiss the rest as more of the same but weaker.
6. Single Flaw Rebuttal: Select the weakest argument the Galloper presents, rebut it, and call it a day. This is the one of the easiest methods, since it's necessarily the easiest-to-rebut argument. But it leaves any rebuttal open to the charge that the it lacks the apparent authority or effort of the Gish Gallop.
7. Fallacy Namedropping: Say that it's a Gish Gallop and walk away. This method is unlikely to change any minds. However, because the point of the Gish Gallop is to make opponents waste time and energy playing a game on the Galloper's terms, the best move may be to not play.

The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains. They want to drop a bomb into your lap and run away, telling you it can only be disarmed when they say it is, and that it isn't their job to tell you when it's disarmed.

Defeating the Gish Gallop is about putting the bomb back into the Galloper's lap ~~and welding it to their hands~~ , or at least tricking them into staying in the room with you while it ticks down. Success depends on re-framing the debate to put the Galloper on the defensive. Make them elaborate on their points and to reveal potential weaknesses or gaps in their knowledge. Get them to assign value to their own arguments so that they cannot later claim that any successfully rebutted points were unimportant. Find ways to tie the Galloper's credibility to the viability of one or all of their points such that the Galloper feels compelled to engage and defend. If all else fails, shift the debate away from the Gish Gallop so they can no longer rely on the apparent mountain of proof to support their position.

## Examples[edit]

The following are some prime examples of the "Gish Gallop". They are usually characterized as "lists", titled "100 reasons why…" or similar. Thus, the points raised in the Gallop are often very short and non-specific. It takes a lot of effort to fully refute everything and it is far easier for the Galloper to add another question than it is for the respondent to formulate a suitable answer, which is the point behind the tactic.

### Pseudoscience[edit]

* 200 Evidence-Based Reasons NOT To Vaccinate, by alternative medicine webshite GreenMedInfo

One of the most notorious anti-vaxxer Gish Gallops out there.
* 100 Authors Against Einstein

Published in 1931, this was an attempt to discredit the theory of relativity by weight of numbers alone — although "100" authors was an overestimate. Because of the simple errors and straw man nature of the work — not helped by the brevity of the entries — Hans Reichenbach described it as "unintentionally funny" and Einstein observed that "if [he] were wrong, one would have been enough"!
* Top 11 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power, by prominent anti-nuclear organization Nuclear Information and Resource Service[19]

Once Amory Lovins manufactured some arguments against nuclear power in the early 1970s, this tactic became the anti-nuclear power argument.
* 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball, by Flat Earther Eric Dubay[20]

What more really needs be said? It's 2 hours long. At best, every proof would get 1.67 minutes of screentime. As a PDF, it's 35 pages long[21] — too long to debunk easily, too short to present conclusive evidence. Nevertheless, rebuttals have still been made.[22][23][24]
* Reconsidering Climate Change

Given 70 points and presented in a 110 Mb Powerpoint file, this was referred to by Skeptical Science as a "climate 'Gish Gallop' of epic proportions."[25]
* Plandemic

This 2020 viral pseudo-documentary makes countless false claims about COVID-19, falsely tying the pandemic to an anti-vax conspiracy theory.

### Religion[edit]

* Ask Darwinists, by Muslim creationist Harun Yahya

25 mostly meaningless questions, some of which are just the same thing repeated for a different example. They're not terribly difficult to answer, and in most cases the best response is simply "so what?"
* 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe, by Christian creationist organization Creation Ministries International

Yep. 101 evidences. Countable nouns be damned! Trying to refute this work takes time, a lot of time. Years, in fact. But that's the point! Under the principle of falsifiability, only one piece of evidence is needed.
* Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin, by Christian creationist Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort habitually attempts to Gallop through as many "facts" as possible, in order to overwhelm the casual reader
* 50 Reasons to Believe in God[26]

An email that was circulated to multiple atheist bloggers around 2008. It does raise the question that if you need 50 reasons to believe in God, you must have very little faith.
* Ponatahi Christian School's list of reasons they teach creationism[27]

29 points in total. But once you realise that the first two points allow them to pick and choose what science to believe in "just because," there's not much point in continuing further down the list.
* Questions college students should ask science professors,[28] by Uncommon Descent

Just 16 questions need so much background knowledge in so many different fields it is unlikely that any single person can answer them all without background research.[29]
* A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military,[30] by the Family Research Council

This continuously expanded list contains 66 (!) very brief descriptions of so-called persecution of Christians. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has an excellent response.[31]
* 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988

Obviously, it didn't happen.

### Politics[edit]

* Men's rights activists have a tendency of arguing this way. Many will bombard you with studies and false statistics. Their use of weak individual arguments in large numbers can be seen on the arguments and response sections on their RationalWiki page.
* 77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage,[32] from the Eagle Forum

Many of these aren't actually reasons and many just repeat the same thing again and again about the gay agenda.
* Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality,[33] from "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership"

A pseudoscientific Gish Gallop dressed up to look like a journal article, complete with reference to The Talmud ("If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him."). How can you argue with that?
* 100 reasons that climate change is natural,[34] from the Daily Express

100 reasons, each reason with about 20 words in it. To pick one at random: "6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time" doesn't actually prove anything!
* 276 strange coincidences of 9/11,[35] from NC911Truth.org

276! Usually it's the ink that's green, not the background.
* Library of Hate[36]

700 "politically incorrect but true statements" that mainly concern race realism with an additional helping of sexism, homophobia and transphobia. The page is an archive of a Twitter account that was unsurprisingly deleted. "Classical liberal" Sargon Of Akkad used the page as the main source of ~~jokes~~ racist rambling in his standup routine.[37]

### Skepticism[edit]

* The whole silly flood story,[38] from the anti-YEC, pro-science Skeptic Report

Some good points thrown in alongside some absolutely wretched illogic and nonsense in a rambling list.

### TV shows[edit]

* Ancient Aliens

## Argumentum ad tl;dr[edit]

A related distraction technique involves swamping an opponent in long-winded screeds of text to artificially inflate the appearance of depth and quality of information presented. In an argumentum ad tl;dr, the actual content of several paragraphs can be summed up in a sentence or two. While the Gish Gallop floods an opponent with many, but relatively short points, argumentum ad tl;dr flings text walls so massive and impenetrable that even ~~Victor Hugo~~ Marcel Proust would blush. Both tactics, however, have exactly the same purpose: to bury and obfuscate the core points that need to be discussed under a quantity of superfluous information. A user might well think that these techniques show that they know what they're talking about, but in the end they act simply as distractions. Note that both are different (but not mutually exclusive) from argumentum ad nauseam, which bolsters the apparent credibility of the argument simply by repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again.

For example, Jason Lisle's blog posts and "research paper" about the anisotropic synchrony convention prattle on endlessly about relativistic physics, hiding the fact that his fundamental assumptions were, to say the least, a little far-fetched. Similarly, engineer Dewey Larson has written numerous books on his theories about matter, going on for pages and pages about the need for critical thinking and letting evidence fit hypotheses, when what he actually proposes in these weighty self-published tomes can be summed up in one sentence — a sentence that he doesn't get to himself for at least 3-4 chapters.

## Abusers of this technique[edit]

* Glenn Beck
* Kaitlin Bennett tries to do this in the same vein as Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder's "change my mind" videos, but she is so bad at this that she usually gets humiliated by the very people she tries to make look stupid.
* Tucker Carlson
* Ray Comfort
* William Lane Craig
* Steven Crowder
* Dinesh D'Souza
* John Hawkins has made a career out of this technique.
* Kent Hovind
* Scott Huse
* Alex Jones
* Charlie Kirk
* Christopher Monckton
* Candace Owens
* Jordan Peterson[39]
* Dennis Prager (See Still the Best Hope). Prager University is particularly notorious for this; if you look at all the response/debunking videos to PragerU, you'll notice that they range from 15 minutes to over an hour long, because that's how long it takes to refute all of the bullshit in a single one of their five minute videos.
* Vladimir Putin adapted the general tactics of the Gish Gallop into Russia's propaganda. The think-tank RAND has named this propaganda technique "the firehose of falsehood."[40]
* Ben Shapiro
* Donald Trump
* Walter Veith
* Matt Walsh

## See also[edit]

Cousins of this technique:

* Countless counterfeits fallacy
* Fractal wrongness
* FUD
* Ham Hightail
* Just asking questions
* One-way hash argument
* PRATT
* Technobabble
* Word salad

## External links[edit]

* See the Wikipedia article on Proof by intimidation.
* Gish Gallop: When People Try to "Prove" Things By Using Overwhelming Nonsense, at Effectiviology
* How Not To Argue With Creationists, by Jim Lippard
* Debating Creationists: Some Pointers, two articles at TalkOrigins
* Gish Gallop section in the great book, Debunk It! by John Grant
* A dedicated website on the topic with video examples

## Notes[edit]

1. ↑ You can hear some mind-boggling examples in a Wired article.[7]
2. ↑ Of course, it's easy to convince people who already believe…

## References[edit]

1. ↑ Debates and the Globetrotters by Eugenie C. Scott (July 7, 1994) The TalkOrigins Archive.
2. ↑ Hermione vs. Voldemort: What deniers can teach us about how to debate Trump. Clinton needs to hammer away on climate change. by Joe Romm (Sep 26, 2016, 4:12 pm) Think Progress.
3. ↑ How to Beat Trump in a Debate: Unprepared and weak-willed opponents continue to play right into his hands. by Mehdi Hasan (February 16, 2023, 7 AM ET) The Atlantic.
4. ↑ Has Anyone Seen the President? by Michael Lewis (February 9, 2018 at 2:00 AM PST; Corrected February 21, 2018 at 2:31 PM PST) Bloomberg.
5. ↑ Trump’s Opening Gambits: His first executive orders aim to show action, but some are likely to be struck down in court. by Michael Waldman (January 21, 2025) Brennan Center for Justice.
6. ↑ Theory and Practice in Academic Debate: A Reference Guide by David Snowball (1994) California State University, Fullerton, 3rd edition (archived from March 11, 2001).
7. ↑ High School Debate at 350 WPM by Jay Caspian Kang (01.20.12, 03:09 pm) Wired.
8. ↑ Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture by Gary Alan Fine (2001) Princeton University Press. ISBN 069107450X.
9. ↑ How to Beat Trump in a Debate: Unprepared and weak-willed opponents continue to play right into his hands. by Mehdi Hasan (February 16, 2023) The Atlantic.
10. ↑ The Biden-Trump presidential debate was a disaster, but not just for obvious reasons by Diana B. Carlin (July 5, 2024 6:30 am) Missouri Independent.
11. ↑ SheCutOffHerToe is engaged in a variation of the Gish Gallop. by LRonPaul2012 (6 Jan 2016) Reddit (archived from 6 Jan 2016 01:31:22 UTC).
12. ↑ Proverbs, Maxims and Phrases of All Ages by Robert Christy (1887) G. P. Putnam's Sons.
13. ↑ Thus Spake Zarathustra by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, translated by Thomas Common (1905) Random House.
14. ↑ Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
15. ↑ I love @ziobrando's "Bullshit asymmetry principle" - this is the reason the skeptic movement exists. by Tim Farley (9:05 AM - 29 May 2014) Twitter (archived from July 20, 2019).
16. ↑ The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit by Brian Earp (2016) Health Watch Newsletter 101:4-5.
17. ↑ The Great Internet Conspiracy The Role of Technology and Social Media in the 9/11 Truth Movement by Ryan Mackey (November 2011) 911myths.com'.
18. ↑ Johnson, D.K. (2018). Countless Counterfeits. In Bad Arguments (eds R. Arp, S. Barbone and M. Bruce). DOI: 10.1002/9781119165811.ch24 (Non-paywall link for chapter.)
19. ↑ Top 11 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power Nuclear Information and Resource Service (archived from July 12, 2016).
20. ↑ 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay YouTube.
21. ↑ 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay
22. ↑ Rebuttals and Refutations. 200 Proofs: Examined
23. ↑ Debunking Dubay 1-7/200 by Qaspar 200 Proofs Earth is not flat.
24. ↑ [1] From the brilliant Professor Dave Explains and 40 mins shorter than the original video.
25. ↑ A climate 'Gish Gallop' of epic proportions, Skeptical Science
26. ↑ 50 reasons to believe in God Iron Chariots.org (archived from March 6, 2016).
27. ↑ Creation-Evolution Ponatahi Christian School (archived from June 22, 2017).
28. ↑ Questions college students should ask science professors (April 8, 2014) Uncommon Descent (archived from May 2, 2019).
29. ↑ No! Not the list of stumpers again by PZ Myers (9 April 2014) Pharyngula.
30. ↑ A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military by Tony Perkins & William G. "Jerry" Boykin, Family Research Council (archived from August 13, 2014).
31. ↑ Religion in the United States Military: Balancing Personal Freedom with Professional Neutrality by Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein (September 19, 2014) The Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
32. ↑ 77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage by Jennifer Roback Morse, The Ruth Institute via Eagle Forum (archived from June 12, 2019).
33. ↑ Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality by Sarah Thompson (2000) Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (archived from July 15, 2019).
34. ↑ 100 reasons why climate change is natural by Charlotte Meredith (00:00, Tue, Nov 20, 2012) Daily Express (archived from July 28, 2019).
35. ↑ http://web.archive.org/web/20070219031200/http://www.nc911truth.org/911_Coincidences.html
36. ↑ https://archive.ph/LRe05
37. ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5km-nbfqf4s
38. ↑ The whole silly Flood story by Bob Riggins (2002, Oct 1st) Skeptic Report (archived from August 14, 2009).
39. ↑ Jordan Peterson Manipulates Language to Appear Smarter by Ellie McFarland (February 10, 2019) 71Republic.
40. ↑ "The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model" by Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews, RAND, 2016 July 11

v \- t \- e

Articles about logical fallacies

Informal fallacies: |  Appeal to tradition • Appeal to novelty • Appeal to nature • Argument from morality • Argumentum ad martyrdom • Big words • Certum est quia impossibile est • Morton's fork • Friend argument • Exception that proves the rule • Extended analogy • Hindsight bias • Race card • Moralistic fallacy • Release the data • Terrorism-baiting • Uncertainty tactic • Greece-baiting • Ham Hightail • Red-baiting • Gore's Law • Nazi analogies • Mistaking the map for the territory • Red herring • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur • Presentism • Sunk cost • Two wrongs make a right • Flying carpet fallacy • My enemy's enemy • Appeal to ancient wisdom • Danth's Law • Argumentum ad lunam • Balance fallacy • Golden hammer • Loaded question • Escape to the future • Word magic • Spider-Man fallacy • Sanctioning the devil • Appeal to mystery • Informal fallacy • Common sense • Post-designation • Hyperbole • Relativist fallacy • Due diligence • Straw man • Good old days • Appeal to probability • Infinite regress • Circular reasoning • Media was wrong before • Is–ought problem • Ad iram • Just asking questions • Pink-baiting • Appeal to faith • Appeal to fear • Appeal to bias • Appeal to confidence • Appeal to consequences • Appeal to emotion • Appeal to flattery • Appeal to gravity • Appeal to hate • Argument from omniscience • Argument from silence • Argumentum ad baculum • Argumentum ad fastidium • Association fallacy • Broken window fallacy • Category mistake • Confounding factor • Counterfactual fallacy • Courtier's Reply • Damning with faint praise • Definitional fallacies • Equivocation • Fallacy of accent • Fallacy of accident • Fallacy of amphiboly • Gambler's fallacy • Imprecision fallacy • Moving the goalposts • Nirvana fallacy • Overprecision • Pathos gambit • Pragmatic fallacy • Quote mining • Argumentum ad sarcina inserta • Science doesn't know everything • Slothful induction • Spotlight fallacy • Style over substance • Toupee fallacy • Genuine but insignificant cause • Argument from incredulity • Appeal to age • Argumentum ad nauseam • Phantom distinction • Appeal to common sense • Argumentum ad hysteria • Omnipotence paradox • Argument from etymology • Appeal to trauma • Countless counterfeits fallacy •
| Ad hoc: |  No True Scotsman • Moving the goalposts • Escape hatch • Handwave • Special pleading • Slothful induction • Nirvana fallacy • God of the gaps • PIDOOMA • Ad hoc • Tone argument •
| Arguments from ignorance: |  Science doesn't know everything • Argument from incredulity • Argument from silence • Toupee fallacy • Appeal to censorship • Science was wrong before • Holmesian fallacy • Argument from omniscience • Willful ignorance • Argument from ignorance •
| Causation fallacies: |  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc • Correlation does not imply causation • Wrong direction • Counterfactual fallacy • Regression fallacy • Gambler's fallacy • Denying the antecedent • Genuine but insignificant cause •
| Circular reasoning: |  Infinite regress • Argument by assertion • Argumentum ad dictionarium • Appeal to faith • Circular reasoning • Self-refuting idea •
| Emotional appeals: |  Appeal to fear • Appeal to emotion • Appeal to confidence • Deepity • Argumentum ad baculum • Appeal to shame • Appeal to flattery • Tone argument • Appeal to money • Argumentum ad fastidium • Appeal to gravity • Appeal to consequences • Loaded language • Style over substance • Appeal to pity • Appeal to hate • Pathos gambit • Shaming • Degenerate • Abomination •
| Fallacies of ambiguity: |  Fallacy of accent • Equivocation • Fallacy of amphiboly • Quote mining • Fallacy of ambiguity • Moral equivalence • Scope fallacy • Suppressed correlative • Not as bad as • Etymology • Continuum fallacy • Wronger than wrong • Definitional fallacies • Code word • Phantom distinction •
Formal fallacies: |  Confusion of the inverse • Denying the antecedent • Non sequitur • Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise • Not even wrong • Chewbacca Defense • Affirming a disjunct • Illicit process • Four-term fallacy • Negative conclusion from affirmative premises • Fallacy fallacy • Substituting explanation for premise • Enthymeme • Syllogism • Formal fallacy • Existential assumption • Masked man fallacy • Self-refuting idea • Argument by gibberish • One single proof • Affirming the consequent • False dilemma • Conjunction fallacy •
Fallacious arguments: |  Bumblebee argument • Fatwa envy • Gotcha argument • Hoyle's fallacy • Intuition pump • Logic and Creation • Not Circular Reasoning • Peanut butter argument • Great Beethoven fallacy • Fallacy of unique founding conditions • Evil is the absence of God • Argument from first cause • How do you know? Were you there? • Argument from design • Argument from beauty • Appeal to nature • Solferino fallacy • Religious scientists • Nothing to hide • Argument from fine tuning • Creep shaming • "I used to be an atheist" • Atheism as a religion • Argumentum ad populum • Argument from morality • Anti-environmentalism • Appeal to bias • Apophasis • Argumentum ad nauseam • Appeal to censorship • Argumentum ad sarcina inserta • Blaming the victim • Bait-and-switch • Danth's Law • Chewbacca Defense • Canard • DARVO • Demonization • Escape hatch • Friend argument • Everyone is racist • Greece-baiting • Gore's Law • Ham Hightail • Just asking questions • Leading question • Loaded language • Linking to authority • Loaded question • Lying by omission • Motte and bailey • Nazi analogies • Moving the goalposts • One single proof • Pink-baiting • One-way hash argument • Pathos gambit • Quote mining • Poisoning the well • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur • Race card • Red-baiting • Red herring • Release the data • Science was wrong before • Shill gambit • Straw man • Silent Majority • Uncertainty tactic • Style over substance • Terrorism-baiting • Weasel word • What's the harm (logical fallacy) • Whataboutism • Bullshit • Logical fallacy • Banana argument • Scapegoat • How come there are still monkeys? • Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white • Ontological argument • Omnipotence paradox • Presuppositionalism • Just a joke • Countless counterfeits fallacy •
Conditional fallacies: |  Slippery slope • What's the harm (logical fallacy) • Special pleading • Conditional fallacy • On the spot fallacy • Appeal to the minority • Argumentum ad populum • Galileo gambit • Professor of nothing •
| Genetic fallacies: |  Genetic fallacy •
|  | Appeals to authority: |  Ipse dixit • Appeal to confidence • Argumentum ad populum • Argument from authority • Linking to authority • Silent Majority • Invincible authority • Appeal to celebrity • Ultracrepidarianism • Appeal to the minority • Galileo gambit • Appeal to identity • Weasel word • Professor of nothing • Euthyphro dilemma • Divine command theory •
|  | Ad hominem: |  Ad iram • Argumentum ad cellarium • Bulverism • Poisoning the well • Blaming the victim • Tu quoque • Whataboutism • Nutpicking • Jonanism • Demonization • Shill gambit • Appeal to bias • Fallacy of opposition • Association fallacy • Damning with faint praise • Pathos gambit • Appeal to identity • Argumentum ad hominem • Nazi analogies • Not an argument • Nothing to hide • Scapegoat • 地下室论证 •
| Imprecision fallacies: |  Apex fallacy • Overprecision • Cherry picking • Overgeneralization • Texas sharpshooter fallacy • False analogy • Appeal to fiction • Spotlight fallacy • Pragmatic fallacy • Selection bias • Anecdotal evidence • Category mistake • Nutpicking • Imprecision fallacy • Confounding factor • Fallacy of accident • Neyman's bias •
Valid logical methods: |  Rapoport's Rules • Negative evidence • Reductio ad absurdum •
Fallacy collections: |  SeekFind • Nizkor Project • Fallacy Files • Your Logical Fallacy Is • Logically Fallacious •