4 ms·

The gish gallop is still extremely effective online, as you can see it in widespread use in almost every HN comments section. Simply quote every 3rd sentence of

The gish gallop is still extremely effective online, as you can see it in widespread use in almost every HN comments section. Simply quote every 3rd sentence of the source comment and reply with 'citation needed'. This takes 30 seconds and will tie up the other side for hours. When they finally collect a reputable source for every claim, just repeat with sample size, perceived bias of the publisher, or 'did they control for X?'. Even if they eventually untangle themselves from this web, you've won anyway because you framed the flame war about the truthfullness of the base facts and not their policy positions.

thih9 6y ago
You give an example of requesting sources. I think wouldn't mind having more of that in twitter debates. I see how this could be a time waster, but I see the benefits too and I'd say that more often than not we forget about checking sources. Also, in a debate (which is usually longer and more focused than discussions elsewhere online), both sides can use this tactic. In this case the person with better sources seems more likely to win. Again, this looks OK-ish to me.
- yellow_postit 6y ago
  This is what makes this rhetorical style so insidious — it should be reasonable and advantageous to have more sources, more depth, more counterpoints but when done in bad faith and weaponized it stifles any progress or real discussion grounded in an attempt to learn.
brazzy 6y ago
What you describe has little to do with "gish gallop" and would be far less effective (because it's too obvious and the other side can just ask you to provide sources of your own). A gish gallop is when you make claims (often citing pseudoscience sources) faster than someone arguing in good faith can address them, and instead of enganging with refutations you just deflect superficially and switch to other claims.

thih9 6y ago

You give an example of requesting sources. I think wouldn't mind having more of that in twitter debates. I see how this could be a time waster, but I see the benefits too and I'd say that more often than not we forget about checking sources. Also, in a debate (which is usually longer and more focused than discussions elsewhere online), both sides can use this tactic. In this case the person with better sources seems more likely to win. Again, this looks OK-ish to me.

yellow_postit 6y ago
This is what makes this rhetorical style so insidious — it should be reasonable and advantageous to have more sources, more depth, more counterpoints but when done in bad faith and weaponized it stifles any progress or real discussion grounded in an attempt to learn.

brazzy 6y ago

What you describe has little to do with "gish gallop" and would be far less effective (because it's too obvious and the other side can just ask you to provide sources of your own). A gish gallop is when you make claims (often citing pseudoscience sources) faster than someone arguing in good faith can address them, and instead of enganging with refutations you just deflect superficially and switch to other claims.