Welcome to Argument Analysis. A new series where I try and break down common argument tactics (or commonly claimed argument tactics), including disingenuous arguments, logical fallacies and the like, and explain what they are, how to recognize them, and how to avoid making them yourself. Today’s lesson is on the Gish Gallop.
What is a Gish Gallop?
If you’ve been around the internet for long enough, chances are you’ve seen someone use the Gish Gallop even if you haven’t recognized it. A Gish Gallop is an argumentative tactic where an individual seeks to overwhelm his or her opponent with a large number of arguments/ sources without considering the strength or relevance of a specific individual argument/ source. It was named after creationist Duane T. Gish who was notorious for using this tactic in his debates on evolution versus creation. The term was originally used mainly in formal debates, but has since expanded to informal debates as well
Essentially the Gish Gallop functions because of the low level of effort that the Gish-Galloper has to put in to make his or her claim versus the high amount of effort that the person arguing with the Galloper has to put in to refute the Galloper’s claim. It’s a basic tenet of logic that disproving a claim takes more effort than making a claim, and the Galloper relies on this fact to make as many claims as possible. It takes too much effort to refute each claim, so some claims are left intact or the argument may go un-refuted in its entirety. In either case, the Galloper proclaims that the existing claims cannot be refuted because they are true, and that they have won the argument.
For example, A Gish Galloper attempting to deny the Holocaust might bring up the fact that the Nuremberg evidence was all forged, that Auschwitz did not contain crematoria, that there was no single document proclaiming the Holocaust, that German documents do not list as many Jews that died in Auschwitz as people claim, that Anne Frank’s diary was written after World War II, that Anne Frank was not a real person, that victims cannot die from asphyxiation from diesel engines, etc. Each one of these claims would take a paragraph or more to refute, but only takes a small phrase to actually make.
A variant of the Gish Gallop that is particularly prevalent in internet arguments is the argument with a thousand different claims and a thousand different sources for each claim. This argument does not actually attempt to quote or use information from a specific source but rather throws a multitude of sources at the opponent which the Galloper claims prove the point. The best example of this are the articles claim 60-300 papers published in a certain time frame refute global warming, supported global cooling, etc. The Galloper only has to cite the papers and make the claim to argue his or her position. The person refuting the Galloper has to read each individual paper to see if the Galloper’s point is actually proven by the paper, determine the validity/ credibility of the paper, look for contrasting sources, etc. So, while this isn’t a formal debate setting, given the time it takes to properly refute these arguments (which can be hours or days given the number, length, and complexity of sources), I still think that this argument counts as a form of Gish Gallop.
How do I Recognize a Gish Gallop?
In a Gish Gallop argument, you’ll see either a lot of unsubstantiated claims, or a lot of unquoted or barely quoted (and not incorporated) sources. Gish Gallop arguments can be long (as a Galloper generally attempts to put as many claims into an argument as possible), but not all long arguments (or rebuttals) are Gish Gallops. If an argument is making a lot of claims, but these claims are well-sourced (with the sources actually incorporated into the argument), and the claims all relate to the question, then that argument is likely not a Gish Gallop. The most common way I see “Gish Gallop” used incorrectly is to refer to something that is simply too long for someone to want to deal with as opposed to arguments that make unsubstantiated claims or use unincorporated sources. There’s no official “line” for what makes something a long argument versus a Gish Gallop, but you’re going to have more people agree (and be more likely to use the word correctly) if you don’t just call something a Gish Gallop because it’s long.
How do I Avoid Using a Gish Gallop?
It’s pretty hard to use a Gish Gallop accidentally. But, try cutting down the number of sources you use to the most relevant, or most credible. Also, if you haven’t read a source or don’t remember the entirety of it (or at the very least the main arguments advanced by it), then do not use it. Also, try to make sure that the claims you are making directly address the topic at hand, or directly respond to the claims you are attempting to address or rebut. Tangential claims or complete non-sequitors are the bread and butter of the Gish Galloper. Finally, when making an argument only make claims that you can support or are prepared to defend. If you can’t defend the claims you’re making then don’t make them. Using these methods, you should never accidentally use a Gish Gallop argument.
And if you’re making Gish Gallops on purpose, stop. It’s not convincing to people that know what they are talking about, it’s an incredibly disingenuous debating method, and is likely preventing you from developing real skills in debate and argumentation. Gish Galloping is a crutch developed for less-skilled participants in formal debate. It’s not something that anyone who considers themselves a debater (of any variety) should consciously use.
