Gish gallop

Rapid-fire argument rhetorical technique

The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

The term "Gish gallop" was coined in 1994 by the anthropologist Eugenie Scott who named it after the American creationist Duane Gish, dubbed the technique's "most avid practitioner".[1]

## Strategy

[edit]

During a typical Gish gallop, the galloper confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies, making it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of the debate.[2] Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably longer to refute than to assert. The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved, or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.[3]

The difference in effort between making claims and refuting them is known as Brandolini's law[4] or informally "the bullshit asymmetry principle". Another example is firehose of falsehoods.

## Countering the Gish gallop

[edit]

Mehdi Hasan, a British journalist, suggests using three steps to beat the Gish gallop:[5]

1. Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that the galloper has presented and tear that argument to shreds ("the weak point rebuttal").
2. Do not budge from the issue or move on until having decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made the counter point.
3. Call out the strategy by name, saying: "This is a strategy called the 'Gish Gallop'—do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard."

Generally, it is more difficult to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than a free-form one.[6] If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by pre-empting and refuting the opponent's commonly used arguments before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into the Gish gallop.[7]

## See also

[edit]

* Ad hominem attack – Attacking the person rather than the argumentPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
* Brandolini's law – Difficulty of refuting false or misleading information
* Filibuster – Political stalling tactic
* Firehose of falsehood – Propaganda technique
* Proof by intimidation – Marking an argument as obvious or trivial
* Sealioning – Type of trolling or harassment
* Spreading – Competitive debate tactic

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Scott 2004, p. 23; Scott 1994.
2. ^ Logan 2000, p. 4; Sonleitner 2004.
3. ^ Grant 2011, p. 74.
4. ^ Hayward 2015, p. 67.
5. ^ Hasan, Mehdi (16 March 2023). "Stay Tuned with Preet, Debating 101" (Podcast).
6. ^ Johnson 2017, pp. 14–15.
7. ^ Grant 2015, p. 55.

## General and cited sources

[edit]

* Grant, John (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-400-5.
* Grant, John (2015). Debunk it: How to Stay Sane in a World of Misinformation. San Francisco: Zest Books. ISBN 978-1-936976-68-3.
* Hayward, C. J. S. (2015). The Seraphinians: "Blessed Seraphim Rose" and His Axe-Wielding Western Converts. The Collected Works of C.J.S. Hayward. San Francisco: Zest Books. ISBN 9781517068134.
* Johnson, Amy (2017). Gasser, Urs (ed.). "The Multiple Harms of Sea Lions" (PDF). Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. p. 14.
* Logan, Paul (25 February 2000). "Scientists Offer Creationist Defense". West Side Journal. Albuquerque Journal. Vol. 120, no. 56\. p. 4 - via Newspapers.com.
* Sonleitner, Frank J. (November–December 2004). "Winning the Creation Debate". Reports. 24 (6). National Center for Science Education: 36–38.
* Scott, Eugenie (2004). Confronting Creationism. Reports of National Center for Science Education. Vol. 24/6. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 6 October 2017.
* Scott, Eugenie (1994). "Debates and the Globetrotters". Talk Origins Archive. Retrieved 6 October 2017.
* Hasan, Medhi (2023). "How to Beat Trump in a Debate". The Atlantic. Retrieved 16 February 2023.
* Richardson, Heather Cox, June 27, 2024, Letters from an American, June 28, 2024

* v
* t
* e

Propaganda techniques

* Accusation in a mirror
* Ad hominem
* Appeal to fear
* Appeal to emotion
* Atrocity propaganda
* Bandwagon effect
* Big lie
* Black propaganda
* Blood libel
* Buzzword
* Cartographic propaganda
* Computational propaganda
* Censorship
* Cherry picking
* Cult of personality
* Demonizing the enemy
* Disinformation
* Dog whistle
* Doublespeak
* Emotive conjugation
* Exaggeration
* False accusation
* False balance
* False dilemma
* Fake news
* Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
* Firehose of falsehood
* Flag-waving
* Framing
* Gish gallop
* Glittering generality
* Half-truth
* Historical negationism
* Ideograph
* Indoctrination
* Lawfare
* Loaded language
* Newspeak
* Managing the news
* Minimisation
* Monumental propaganda
* Moralistic fallacy
* New generation warfare
* Obscurantism
* Overcomplication
* Oversimplification
* Plain folks
* Psychological warfare
* Propaganda of the deed
* Public relations
* Rally 'round the flag effect
* Scapegoating
* Senbu
* Shooting and crying
* Slogan
* Spin
* Weasel word
* Whataboutism
* White propaganda

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template