An dishonest discussion strategy in which one attempts to overwhelm a discussion by bringing forward as many arguments as possible so that other participants have neither the time nor the opportunity to discuss them all.
Typically, more emphasis is placed on the number of arguments rather than on their quality. The aim is to over-saturate the discussion and thus make a detailed assessment – and possible refutation – of these points impossible.
The term “Gish Gallop” was coined by Eugenie Scott in the context of the creationism debate to describe a discussion tactic used by Duane Gish. However, its use is not limited to this context.
In its original meaning, “gish-gallop” refers to an unfair rhetoric strategy of putting forward as many different arguments, assertions and positions as possible, which in their entirety exceed the ability of the other discussion participants to refute, reject or even discuss them all.
This strategy aims to present oneself to an audience as “better informed” than the opponents and thus to appear to a non-expert outsider as the “winner” of the discussion ((Argumentum) ad captandum vulgus).
The strategy of overwhelming is used to distract from the fact that none of the arguments put forward are really robust and would stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, such an examination is actively prevented by putting forward further arguments before the opponents have a chance to refute or even discuss the previous arguments in detail.
Another aspect is that by overloading the discussion with one-sided arguments, opponents are deprived of the opportunity to present their own positions.
As a result, such a “gish gallop” is a strategy to avoid an objective discussion. This can therefore also be counted as a derailing strategy.
The most important goal in defence against this strategy is to end the “gallop”. If at all possible, the opponent should be forced into a factual debate in which they have to defend the validity of their arguments.
This is especially important in the context of a guided discussion, where it is the moderator’s task to prevent the discussion from being derailed by this kind of strategy.
This can be done with interjections such as the following:
“Before we move on to the next topic, let’s look at your arguments in detail so far. Let’s start with the first one …”
“Surely there is a reason why you put this forward as your first argument. Please explain to us where you got the data from and why you think this is relevant to our discussion.”
One strategy that can be observed time and again on social media is to link to a series of scientific studies that are all supposedly intended to support the respective position. These are usually brought forward by the principle of “the more the better”, without explaining the relevant aspects and limitations of the respective studies.
Other participants in the discussion are thus forced to either simply accept the study as an argument from authority, or to painstakingly analyse the linked studies to find any relevant limitations in order to then start an unpromising discussion about the relevancy in the context of the current discussion.
One suggestion to defend against this tactic is to ask for explanations on why these studies in particular are relevant to this discussion and whether the assumptions made in them apply to the specific situation. In other words, it should be determined if it is not a reference to a false authority.
Another hint: on closer inspection, one will often find that the studies linked in this way are in fact not relevant. One should therefore assume that they are without relevance, until proven otherwise.