A classic example is when a proponent of some pseudoscience bombards an expert with many weak arguments and start a new argument each time the expert successfully refute one of them.

But Gish gallops also appear in less formal contexts. E.g., someone who w...

Regardless of which technique you use, you can generally point out that your opponent is using the Gish gallop, especially if you need to explain why you cannot provide a full, point-by-point rebuttal.

Explain how your opponent is using this technique and why it is problem...

When responding to specific arguments within a Gish gallop, you can use certain techniques to respond effectively to the flawed arguments.

• When someone states there is support for their stance, you can ask your opponent to list the specific evidence they claim support their view.

• Full rebuttal. Go over every point made by your opponent, and refute each of them individually.
• Sample-based rebuttal. Select a representative sample of your opponent's arguments, either randomly or based on some criteria, then refute only those a...

The Gish gallop technique is used for two main reasons:

1. It is often easier to raise weak arguments than it is to refute them.
2. People generally prefer simple arguments and not complex refutations. The Gish gallop often contains these arg...

Arguments in a Gish gallop often contain various logical fallacies, such as the strawman fallacy which attacks a fabricated argument, or appeals to nature, which claims something is good because it is perceived as natural.

This technique's strength is that it frames the course of the debate and can create a false appearance of credibility and control.

• Because it gives an advantage to the Gish galloper, your best course of action is to avoid playing their game.

It is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with numerous vague arguments, with no regard for accuracy, validity, or relevance of those arguments.

The Gish gallop is a misleading rhetorical technique, rather than a logical fallacy...