3 ms·

I disagree. Engaging implicitly validates the argument. If you refute X, they can just come back with "yes but what about Y?" and, should you eventually get bor

I disagree. Engaging implicitly validates the argument. If you refute X, they can just come back with "yes but what about Y?" and, should you eventually get bored or run out of time, they use your failure to properly rebut as evidence of their thesis. I'm also not familiar with any argument that a Gish gallop must make claims not supporting a single thesis, or that they must be hard to refute (as opposed to simply harder to refute than to state). Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it, and I don't believe those are the traits which make the argument style inappropriate.

nwienert 6y ago
Engaging with an argument validates it? That doesn’t make sense to me. Gish gallop was invented to categorize the specific style of politicians and charlatans that will throw out myriad claims to dismantle and confuse conversations with too many directions, and to have many of the claims be hard to even refute as they are vague. The vagueness and multi-directionality is the usual marker of it. I don’t see how these claims are meant to move in diverse directions, or how any isn't relevant, each is a pretty refutable small piece of evidence connected directly to determining the truth of the case here.