#argument analysis

Welcome to Argument Analysis. A new series where I try and break down common argument tactics (or commonly claimed argument tactics), including disingenuous arguments, logical fallacies and the like, and explain what they are, how to recognize them, and how to avoid making them yourself. Today’s lesson is on the Gish Gallop. 

What is a Gish Gallop?

If you’ve been around the internet for long enough, chances are you’ve seen someone use the Gish Gallop even if you haven’t recognized it. A Gish Gallop is an argumentative tactic where an individual seeks to overwhelm his or her opponent with a large number of arguments/ sources without considering the strength or relevance of a specific individual argument/ source. It was named after creationist Duane T. Gish who was notorious for using this tactic in his debates on evolution versus creation. The term was originally used mainly in formal debates, but has since expanded to informal debates as well

Essentially the Gish Gallop functions because of the low level of effort that the Gish-Galloper has to put in to make his or her claim versus the high amount of effort that the person arguing with the Galloper has to put in to refute the Galloper’s claim. It’s a basic tenet of logic that disproving a claim takes more effort than making a claim, and the Galloper relies on this fact to make as many claims as possible. It takes too much effort to refute each claim, so some claims are left intact or the argument may go un-refuted in its entirety. In either case, the Galloper proclaims that the existing claims cannot be refuted because they are true, and that they have won the argument. 

For example, A Gish Galloper attempting to deny the Holocaust might bring up the fact that the Nuremberg evidence was all forged, that Auschwitz did not contain crematoria, that there was no single document proclaiming the Holocaust, that German documents do not list as many Jews that died in Auschwitz as people claim, that Anne Frank’s diary was written after World War II, that Anne Frank was not a real person, that victims cannot die from asphyxiation from diesel engines, etc. Each one of these claims would take a paragraph or more to refute, but only takes a small phrase to actually make. 

A variant of the Gish Gallop that is particularly prevalent in internet arguments is the argument with a thousand different claims and a thousand different sources for each claim. This argument does not actually attempt to quote or use information from a specific source but rather throws a multitude of sources at the opponent which the Galloper claims prove the point. The best example of this are the articles claim 60-300 papers published in a certain time frame refute global warming, supported global cooling, etc. The Galloper only has to cite the papers and make the claim to argue his or her position. The person refuting the Galloper has to read each individual paper to see if the Galloper’s point is actually proven by the paper, determine the validity/ credibility of the paper, look for contrasting sources, etc. So, while this isn’t a formal debate setting, given the time it takes to properly refute these arguments (which can be hours or days given the number, length, and complexity of sources), I still think that this argument counts as a form of Gish Gallop. 

How do I Recognize a Gish Gallop?

In a Gish Gallop argument, you’ll see either a lot of unsubstantiated claims, or a lot of unquoted or barely quoted (and not incorporated) sources. Gish Gallop arguments can be long (as a Galloper generally attempts to put as many claims into an argument as possible), but not all long arguments (or rebuttals) are Gish Gallops. If an argument is making a lot of claims, but these claims are well-sourced (with the sources actually incorporated into the argument), and the claims all relate to the question, then that argument is likely not a Gish Gallop. The most common way I see “Gish Gallop” used incorrectly is to refer to something that is simply too long for someone to want to deal with as opposed to arguments that make unsubstantiated claims or use unincorporated sources. There’s no official “line” for what makes something a long argument versus a Gish Gallop, but you’re going to have more people agree (and be more likely to use the word correctly) if you don’t just call something a Gish Gallop because it’s long. 

How do I Avoid Using a Gish Gallop?

It’s pretty hard to use a Gish Gallop accidentally. But, try cutting down the number of sources you use to the most relevant, or most credible. Also, if you haven’t read a source or don’t remember the entirety of it (or at the very least the main arguments advanced by it), then do not use it. Also, try to make sure that the claims you are making directly address the topic at hand, or directly respond to the claims you are attempting to address or rebut. Tangential claims or complete non-sequitors are the bread and butter of the Gish Galloper. Finally, when making an argument only make claims that you can support or are prepared to defend. If you can’t defend the claims you’re making then don’t make them. Using these methods, you should never accidentally use a Gish Gallop argument. 

Welcome back to Argument Analysis. A series where I try to break down common argument tactics (or commonly claimed argument tactics), including disingenuous arguments, logical fallacies and the like, and explain what they are, how to recognize them, and how to avoid making them yourself. Today’s lesson is on the Model S Kafkatrap.  

What is a Kafkatrap?

The Model S Kafkatrap is a subset of a larger type of argument-- the Kafkatrap. A Kafkatrap is a newer term for a type of argument that has become very, very common both on and off the internet. A Kafkatrap is a logical fallacy where an individual seeks to establish guilt, sin, or prove a claim despite their opponents denial of guilt, sin of the claim in question. The Kafkatrap was named after Czech author Franz Kafka and based around his book The Trial in which a man is accused of an unspecified crime and put into a system where the only way out is to admit guilt for the crime-- whether or not he committed it. The term originated to describe identity debates (debates on religion, race, sex, etc.), but has since proliferated outward to all manner of debates. 

What is a Model S Kafkatrap?

The Model S Kafkatrap is the most fallacious model of the Kafkatrap as it creates an unfalsifiable argument. The Model S Kafkatrap is when the denial of a claim is taken as proof positive of the claim in question. It’s a basic tenet of logic that disputing a claim is not done when a person wishes to confirm the claim, but the Model S Kafkatrap reverses this principle and makes the very act of resistance inherent evidence for confirmation. 

For example, Model S Kafkatrap on gender inequality might look something like this:

Person A: Women are discriminated against more than men, and this is a problem

Person B: I don’t see that in my everyday experience 

Person A: The fact that you deny this shows how huge of a problem it is! People don’t even notice! 

In this example, Person A has taken person B’s Denial of their claim as proof of their claim without the evidence to back this up. Thus, it becomes impossible for Person B not to prove Person A’s claim. If they accept the claim, they prove it by default, whereas if they deny the claim then the Model S Kafkatrap asserts that the claim is proven anyway. Thus, the Model S Kafkatrap is also logical fallacy as opposed to merely a disingenuous argument. 

How do I Recognize a Model S Kafkatrap?

In a Model S Kafkatrap, you’ll see a person try to argue that another person’s denial of their claim proves their claim. This usually a pretty good indication that the argument is a Model S Kafkatrap, but it’s not foolproof. There are some claims that this doesn’t work for. If one of the claims is that a person is acting irrationally and they respond to that claim by denying it in an irrational manner, then it is not a Model S Kafkatrap to say that their denial actually proves the claim in question. 

My personal way to differentiate between a Model S Kafkatrap and one of the exceptions is to ask if the person saying the denial proves their claim is looking at the fact that there is a denial, or if they are looking at the specific context of the denial. If they are saying that the fact someone is denying their point makes it true, then that’s a Model S Kafkatrap. If they are pointing to an element of the denial that supports their claim, then it’s probably not a Model S Kafkatrap even though it looks like it. If you use this standard, I’m confident that you’ll use the term “Kafkatrap” (or “Model S Kafkatrap” if you’re pedantic like me) more correctly and effectively. 

How do I Avoid Using a Model S Kafkatrap?

It’s pretty hard to use a Model S Kafkatrap unintentionally. But, try responding to the opponent’s argument directly rather than responding to the idea that an opponent has made an argument. If you address the opponent’s argument specifically, you’ll never run the risk of making a Model S Kafkatrap. Also, if you’re going to say that an opponent’s denial of a claim actually helps to prove it, be sure to point to something in the denial as proof. If you’ve got evidence, it’s not a Model S Kafkatrap. Finally if you’re afraid you’re potentially making a Model S Kafkatrap, ask yourself, “how can my opponent prove my wrong?” If they can’t, then you need to retool your argument. As long as they can, it’s not a Model S Kafkatrap or any kind of logical fallacy. 

Welcome back to Argument Analysis. A series where I try to break down common argument tactics (or commonly claimed argument tactics), including disingenuous arguments, logical fallacies and the like, and explain what they are, how to recognize them, and how to avoid making them yourself. Today’s lesson is on the Tu Quoque logical fallacy. 

What is a Tu Quoque?

A Tu Quoque is a type of logical fallacy. Tu Quoque literally translates as “you also” and can best be understood as an appeal to hypocrisy. A Tu Quoque argument focuses on the hypocritical actions of a person as opposed to trying to actually disprove the point being raised. It is a type of informal logical fallacy that is especially common on the internet, but occurs in offline debates as well. 

In a standard Tu Quoque argument, the person making the Tu Quoque will attempt to prove that their opponent’s prior actions or beliefs are hypocritical to what they are supporting at the current moment. This hypocrisy is then taken as disproving the truth of the opponent’s claim. Seeing as the actual substance of the claim was never addressed, the truth of the claim actually has not been logically evaluated. Thus, the Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy because the “proof” of hypocrisy on the part of the opponent constitutes the “proof” of the untruth of their claim. 

For example, let’s take a simple scenario. I have a habit of making very, very long posts on this website. I see a post that is 20 pages of single-spaced text long and comment, “wow, that’s a long post. You might want to cut-down on that a little.” A person making a Tu Quoque response to my argument would point out that I am in fact very long-winded myself and use proof of my own “hypocrisy” as proof that my claim is incorrect and can be dismissed. Despite the fact that the claim has never actually been discussed. 

How do I Recognize a Tu Quoque?

Tu Quoques are fairly easy to recognize. In a Tu Quoque, you’ll see one person try and argue that another person is a hypocrite and therefore they are wrong about something. Most commonly, you’ll see someone point to a past comment from the person in question where they say something contradictory to their current stated position. Another common variant is a person using someone’s past against them. For example, just because someone smoked cigarettes does not mean that their statements that “smoking is bad for you” are invalid or incorrect. 

However, not every instance of calling someone a hypocrite is a Tu Quoque. If there is no broader point being made, and someone merely calls someone else a hypocrite and provides proof of that hypocrisy, then it’s not a Tu Quoque. If there is a broader point which a person addresses and then also calls someone else a hypocrite, then it’s also not a Tu Quoque. The only way an argument can be a Tu Quoque is if the proof of a person’s hypocrisy is being used to disprove a larger, unrelated claim.  

How do I Avoid Using a Tu Quoque

Like other logical fallacies, Tu Quoques are hard to use unintentionally. But, keeping your argument focused on the points a person makes as opposed to their character and prior actions is a good start. If you do want to call someone out for hypocritical actions, remember to make the hypocrisy its own point as opposed to blending it with another point. If it’s your own point then be sure that you don’t accidentally imply that anything the hypocritical person said is necessarily wrong because of the hypocrisy. If it’s a response, then respond to all points and then and only then point out hypocrisy. Following these simple tips will prevent you from accidentally using a Tu Quoque. 

As promised (if belated), I did finally get through the transcript for Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins! If you need a refresher, you can remind yourself of what Spokeo’s all about here. And, if you want to listen to the oral argument or read the transcript, you can do that here.

Anyway! On to the analysis. Right off the bat, we have Kagan and Sotomayor tossing questions at Andrew Pincus, Spokeo’s lawyer. They seem very skeptical of Spokeo’s argument (me, too), so I think they’re pretty safe bets for Robins. Ginsburg keeps mostly silent, but she brings up a couple of good hypotheticals over the course of the argument that say, basically, what I said: Spokeo’s argument just isn’t sensical.

Scalia pops up with a lot of questions about what harm Congress meant to protect against -- the statute seems more concerned with procedures about correcting credit reporting problems than the problems themselves, and Scalia seems to be angling for a decision that would say that, whatever Robins contends, the injury that he’s complaining of right now aren’t what Congress was trying to protect against. Then again, it’s Scalia, and he might just want to hear himself talk. He throws a couple of softball pitches* to Pincus, including answering one of Kagan’s questions for Pincus, so it’s probably a pretty safe bet that he’s going to come out for Spokeo.

On the other hand, Scalia had a lot of questions for Robins’ lawyer, William Consovoy, which, in my opinion, Consovoy handled pretty adroitly.

Thomas, of course, asked no questions whatsoever.** In cases of this nature, you can usually count on Thomas to follow Scalia.

Roberts got into it a bit with Consovoy, as well, at one time engaging in a long hypothetical situation that, sadly, Consovoy didn’t quite seem to get. Kagan jumped in to try and save him, but I think we can count Roberts in the Spokeo camp.

Breyer and Alito kept mostly silent, especially Alito, though Breyer’s questions seemed to favor Robins. Kennedy’s questions were, naturally, obtuse. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Alito will vote with the conservative judges, and Breyer with the liberals, which, of course, makes Kennedy the deciding vote.

The real issue here seems to be all of the judges are concerned with a ruling that will open the door for Congress to grant standing everywhere -- or worse, allow any plaintiff to claim a right to sue for any violation of statute, which is absolutely against Supreme Court precedent. And no one seems to have liked the 9th Circuit’s decision; at one point, Roberts suggests a way for Robins to win while still deciding that the 9th Circuit was wrong, and Kagan flat out says, “Now, look, it’s not a good opinion.” Again, the 9th Circuit has a reputation for being frequently overturned by SCOTUS, so a decision that lets Robins win and still effectively overturns the 9th Circuit’s decision is not out of the question.

As we stand now, I think it’s too close to tell whether Robins win, though on my own analysis, I think it’s pretty clear he should win. What I suspect might happen is a decision that lets Robins pursue his case, but severely limits the ability of other people to bring such lawsuits, which I think will please most of the justices. Remember that Robins claims that a wide variety of specific information that Spokeo reported about him was false, and gave examples of how it may’ve hurt him and how he would never know. The Court could, and very well might, hold that any future plaintiffs will have to show the same sort of prospective injury.

Because someone asked, I figure I’ll mention it: there’ll be a few months before we get an actual decision; probably it won’t come this year. Of course, when it does, I’ll be there to break it down.

* In lawyerspeak, a softball is an easy or obvious question asked in oral argument, and they’re usually thrown by judges trying to help out a struggling lawyer.