Do you think Ben Shapiro popularized the use of the Gish Gallop on the right?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

For those you don't know, the "Gish Gallop" is basically spamming your opponent with points related to the main theme of your argument to try to overwhelm them.

Ben Shapiro uses this a lot on college campuses to make 18 year olds look dumb but when he tried it on a competent debater he was able to see how all of these points were related and could be refuted in one or two sentences. So when his main (and pretty much only) tactic didn't work, he choked up big time and ended up sounding like a malfunctioning robot.

I've noticed quite a few people on the right use this tactic (especially libertarians).

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

I don't know if the interview video you provided was supposed to exemplify Shapiro, "sounding like a malfunctioning robot", but if so then I completely disagree. He was as collected and fluent as ever. If anything, David was rather the one who stumbled a bit on his sentences at some occasions. But overall it was a cordial and equal debate as I see it. They even agree on most fundamental points.

The center of, "gish galloping", is attempting to overwhelm your opponent *even if the arguments you volley at them are not strong or reasonable*, right? But then the question becomes, is Shapiro's arguments all weak and incorrect? That he speaks quickly and with great quantity is a fact, but that alone does not mean he's wrong. That just means he's a quick thinker.

Conclusively I think you're ascribing gish galloping at Shapiro and individuals to the right on here, without really knowing for a fact that they assail their opponents with specifically weak or inaccurate arguments. Because it's very easy that it's all about subjectivity, you don't *like* what they say so you conclude they most be wrong. You have to be able to pin point claims and arguments made and substantiate why they're wrong in that case.

Otherwise you're making yourself guilty of simply painting the picture of fallacy with actually having the proof of it.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

At the end he choked up and David was able to see that all the arguments Shapiro was spamming him with were around a common theme and David was able to ID that central point and debunk them with ease. "Conclusively", I stated I've noted quite a few people on the right using this tactic, not that this is the only tactic that they use.

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

After rewatching carefully I'll admit that he did seem a bit frazzled towards the end, but ultimately David didn't", debunk his arguments with ease". Ben did evaluate on the fundamentals of his claims concerning rights to bear arms and state infringement. He did not become speechless or, "choked up or anything", nor did David claim to have refuted him. So again, I believe it comes down to subjectivity because you agree with David rather than Ben.

No, but you did say that Shapiro might only ever be using gish galloping, and that I object to for reasons stated in the first comment.

[goaded]

I'm kind of agreeing with both of you, but I wanted to put up an example of Shapiro volleying an argument that sounds good, but is not "strong or reasonable":

"Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro claimed on a Dec. 3 episode of his podcast that, compared to Democrats, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act as a percentage than Democrats did,” he said on the show."

Show link, currently broken: www.dailywire.com/podcasts/38953/ep-671-goodbye-41

checkyourfact.com/.../

Now, that is true, but not a strong or reasonable argument.

By party, the Dems were about 65% for the act, and the Republicans were about 80%.

However, if you look at how politicians on the whole voted, in the former Confederate states, the vote was 9:1 against, in the other states it was 9:1 for the act (exact figures here The Democrats are not "The Party of the KKK". ↗ ). The reason he could make the claim was that most of the southern politicians were Democrats (because they weren't the party that had defeated them and stopped slavery), and most of the Republicans were in the north.

The trouble is that it's something that makes your opponent have to go through multiple steps before arguing about it:

* That doesn't sound right
* It is right, that's strange
* Why is it right?
* Ooohhhhh, of course.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

He tried to evaluate those claims but David showed why those wouldn't be valid unless you give people access to heavy assault weapons. Shapiro stated that there had been studies showing that the US army couldn't win a fight against a population armed with semi-automatic rifles but he didn't mention what those studies were let alone discuss how they came to that conclusion (hence he's Gish Galloping). So no, it's objective rather than subjective. Also, I said he uses it a lot, not that he only ever uses it; again, you're just making strawman arguments.

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

"So when his main (and pretty much only) tactic didn't work" A bad idea to deny your own words.

Perhaps it's understated that they both are aware of the studies Shapiro is referencing. Unless we find the studies ourselves and read them we can't be sure can we, and David did not dispute Ben's argument based on these supposed studies either, so he acted as if knowing about them. This wasn't a public debate but rather a streaming of a discussion between the two, so it might not have occurred to Ben to fully cite the sources, but I have known him to do so in other debates, which for the record, includes many real ones and not just campus lectures. So it's not really honest to pretend all he does is, "argue against 18 year olds".

And no, I do not use any strawman arguments. That has nothing to do with any of this so it seems to me you're just reaching to have something to say. You furthermore did not use, "again", correctly, since you haven't previously accused me of strawman arguments.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Wow, apparently you can't recognize hyperbole. They may both be aware of the studies but they were also running out of time when Shapiro brought them up so that could be another reason David didn't ask him to cite them. I didn't accuse you before but you did use a strawman before (when you said I claimed that this was the only tactic the right uses). But now you're doing it again. I said he uses this tactic on 18 year olds, not that he only argues with 18 year olds and in this instance he tried to use it on David and failed.

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

Easy to write off claims you've made as hyperbole afterwards to not have to be responsible for them. Whether or not that was what you did I do not know, but I still reacted on the sentence that Shapiro's main, *and probably* only tactic didn't work. For reasons I've already stated you're not really in a position to assert that he gish gallops without question, and it's furthermore a very weird place to use hyperbole in. As I look at your paragraph in its context it seems very much so meant to be taken literally, so I just have a hard time believing you.

Yeah, could very well have been that there wasn't enough time. But that they were still both aware. I agree, in which case, no gish galloping on Shapiro's part.

I merely inferred that even saying that anyone at all uses gish galloping requires more than just your subjective perception of their arguments. I didn't care at all whether or not you said all or only a few did so I do not know why you're hung up about that detail as if it is of consequence.

But yes, now that you say it I admit that I misinterpreted the 18 year olds part.

But fact remains you're pretending as if this debate clearly displayed than when Shapiro is faced with, "a competent debater he was able to see how all of these points were related and could be refuted in one or two sentences" Even though that really isn't the case when I watch the same video. Again, your subjective conclusion because you disagree with Ben. Neither do you really have anything concrete which establishes that Shapiro is a propagator of gish galloping.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

It's also easy to write it off as Hyperbole when I already stated that he uses a lot as opposed to always (so that it's hyperbole would be implied to anyone who has any degree of literary competency). Shapiro Gish Galloped throughout the whole vide; you didn't notice him rambling?

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

Come now, let's be honest. The sentence, "So when his main (and pretty much only) tactic" does not in any way, "imply", hyperbole. Don't dig yourself a pit of fallacious defenses out of pride.

You're still bypassing the entire point. You say it's gish galloping but the entire center of that term is a large quantity of arguments, *that aren't accurate or strong*, you don't really have anything that says that's the case with Shapiro. As I said in the first comment, just because he talks fast it doesn't mean he's wrong. That just means he's a quick thinker. Really if anyone is gish galloping then it's the person who ascribes a dozen negative adjectives to Shapiro's rhetoric without really evidencing why they're wrong or weak as arguments.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

No but me stating that he uses it a lot (vs always) before it does. No, him talking fast doesn't mean that he's wrong but it doesn't preclude him for Gish Galloping. Also, if I was just ascribing adjectives to Gish Gallop then I would go through every one of his arguments and ascribe adjectives to it. You're trying to turn my accusation against me and faceplanting.

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

I'm not trying, I am turning it on you, and in return you offer poor defense.

And no, I never said it precluded him from it, but the point, for the last time, which you're trying really hard to avoid, is that you have no proof of it being so. Yet you present his quickness of tongue as if that is conclusive support for Ben being a gish galloper and refuse to go any deeper than that, because there isn't any real suggestion in there that he does do that.

Not really though. The sentence preceding the one I quoted does not take away from the fact that you strongly imply that it's his only tactic.

But if this is as far as we'll get on this then I suggest we simply agree to disagree.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

You aren't turning it on me if I'm not Gish Galloping in the first place and explaining why it's not Gish Galloping is not a poor defense, it's just what they way it is. But yes lets agree to disagree.

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

If only then you showed the same enthusiasm to explain why it is that Ben *does* practice gish galloping, other than demeaning his fast reflexes, but yes, agree to disagree then.

[Someguynamedbob]

Lol you don’t think people on the left use this tactic? I think you’ve got viewpoint bias, you agree with one perspective so you don’t notice the flaws people with similar or agreeing perspectives are putting out, yes Ben sharpiro uses this tactic (he’s not a libertarian by the way he’s a conservative) but I’ve seen Bernie sanders, AOC and many people on the “left” use very very similar tactics

[Kurαȷ]

I think Stefan Molyneux is a bigger offender, but he is certainly less know of the two.

Ben Shapiro sometimes includes half-truths in his word salads, Molyneux, dealing mostly with ideological topics, tends to not have that advantage on his side.

[Liam_Hayden]

Ben Shapiro is an annoying neocon war monger, but he is pretty good at what you are discussing.