How to do proper gish gallop in debates!

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Now, all of you already know that most of the formal debates come with character limit or time limit.

This basically means that as long as you use full character limit or full time limit, opponent cannot respond to each of your sentences individually.

In most formal debates, people dont respond to each sentence, but break the logical link between premises and argument to negate it by presenting counter options or proving that premises are false or assumptions,  or try to outweigh the argument.

However, gish gallop changes the rules of the game.

In gish gallop, there is plenty of arguments and reasons which make it impossible to respond to them all.

And since there is plenty of them, outweighing them is also difficult.

The basic way of doing gish gallop is to write as many as possible independent reasons which support the topic.

They must be independent reasons, which means that they dont depend on each other.

That means, if one is proven wrong, others still stand as true.

Whats also important in gish gallop is to avoid assumptions, but use facts as reasons.

That way, you will be creating lots of conclusions in minds of those who read it, even if you yourself never state those conclusions.

And opponent will not be able to dismiss them as assumptions either.

Gish gallop is also useful when attacking an argument.

Instead of focusing too much on building one counterargument, you use plenty of smaller ones, forcing opponent to negate each if he is to save his argument.

The goal in gish gallop is to create a situation where it takes more text for opponent to refute your argument than it takes you to write it.

This basically leaves opponent with only 1 option, which is to drop some of your arguments and instead try to outweigh them indirectly.

But gish gallop is not easy work.

Thinking of enough reasons to fill character space with takes time. 

You can of course use google and spam facts and statistics, but that only works on some topics, apparently those where there is a lot of facts and statistics supporting one side of the topic.

Now, the best example of successful Gish Gallop is Trump.

In fact, it made him president once.

He won countless of debates by saying too many things in short amount of time, basically overwhelming an opponent.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
I will punish gish gallopers if the behavior is called out, but if the behavior is not called out by their opponent they are typically rewarded due to it being immoral not to adopt a tabula rasa voting style.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
It is a nice grace of the site to allow a certain amount of characters passed the limit.

15 days later

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@WyIted
but tabula rasa means there's no such thing as gish gallop as too many points is totally irrational to conclude without comparison outside the debate and is just a weak excuse.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
I am not even going to reread what you are responding to. I forgot what I even posted. I just know when I judge debates I will not punish for gish gallop unless the person doing it is called out by their opponent.  However merely calling the out is not enough they need to explain to me why I should punish their opponent for it
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I am not even going to reread what you are responding to. I forgot what I even posted. I just know when I judge debates I will not punish for gish gallop unless the person doing it is called out by their opponent.  However merely calling the out is not enough they need to explain to me why I should punish their opponent for it
So you want someone with 23 points they're rebuking, to waste characters comparing the standard amount of contentions in a debate to that one just to cry about it? I don't think they can spare much.

Gish Gallop is unpunishable if you follow tabula rasa, you can't punish someone for being a freak of nature in the amount of contentions and rebuttals they had. Instead, you can punish points being barely fleshed out or explained.