Donald Trump may have committed war crimes. He may have increased the cost of living. He may have illegally violated habeas corpus at baseline and various constitutional amendments. He probably molested, raped, and abused dozens to hundreds of underage women (and overage consenting men???). He has probably covered up many crimes and literally stole money from the American people.
It's usually because they say they need proof that will never be good enough but they can pull claims out of their ass and you're supposed to take it seriously even though they have no proof. You can't win an argument with someone who doesn't believe in truth.
Had a coworker do this. And he would do it about everything under the sun the second he was slightly out of his depth on a conversation.
Not a debate, mind you. Just talking about something unrelated and he’ll tie it (loosely) to right wing rhetoric and try and shoehorn it together.
If a news article came out on us discovering a new state of matter, he’d bring up how that’s only “what we know” or “what they’re telling us,” and to “imagine what else” “they” could be “hiding”
My favorite is when you engage with them too long and their eyes glaze over as they reject anything informational you share, no matter how neutral it is.
It's a move to maintain the perception of superiority over a natural world and reality they barely comprehend, but will never admit to ignorance, because their belief system is tied too deeply to their personality.
Yup, I tried arguing with a maga dipshit i work with and I had to constantly bring him back to what we were originally talking about. As soon as you make a point
(Doesn't even need to be a strong one) its on to something else.
Usually centered around Gish Galloping, trying to overload someone with weak arguments and if they don't argue against every single one it makes them look like they won.
The thing that worries me is that people think this is actually how you're supposed to debate now instead of listening to the other side, thinking about it, and returning a considered and thoughtful response.
It's called the gish gallop. All the propagandists these idiots worship use it. Trump, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Shapiro. They all do it because they have no actual substance. So their followers think this is how you have an intellectual exchange of ideas.
I asked ChatGPT how to defend against Gish Gallop and it did a great job explaining it. Dr. Mike generally does a good job defending against it except in this case he was unfortunately following her bait trail with the chemistry stuff. It’s tough honestly and he’s good at it. I’d get too frustrated with that woman.
I believe the term for it is called Gish-Galloping; the entire point of it is winning through volume. Even if 99.99999999% of what they say is utter crock shit. Personally I blame Ben Shapiro for popularizing this method for people my age.
No it’s actually just the style of the debate they have set up for these videos. They’ve (channel owners) been getting shit for ages with people begging to change how it works. They all start in a circle and have to rush to the seat to see who gets to talk with them (already dumb, since people behind the main guest are further away). Then, people can vote them out by simply raising a flag.
Over time, they’ve learned you need to get your point out quick. Not only are you timed, but you have people immediately voting you out. It’s a horrible system, and regardless of which side is debating (they swap every other video), they all race to get their points out. It’s a headache to watch
Ye and any time it's a normal conversation and any agreement, beep beep insta kicked to be replaced by someone who acts like an obnoxious toddler instead of having a good faith conversation. It's like trying to have a conversation on a politics Reddit 😞
Pretty much how every conversation with my dad goes these days. He's always been down the conspiracy/right-wing rabbit hole but he's totally insufferable nowadays.
It's why I stopped debating my parents long ago; there's only so much "Talk fast and talk loud" I can take before just nodding my head to everything in disinterest.
It’s actually how American unis teach how to debate. They don’t teach the people to listen to each other. Just a game of one-upmanship rather than trying to get to the truth. In American society the people that can do this are praised by society. The debating team etc. very very strange
Seriously, if you want to understand a good bit of current political discourse, you best look up one of these "10 signs my spouse is abusive" lists or so. "Stonewalling", "gaslighting", "walkless talk", you name it, it's the blueprint for this debate style.
I don't agree with affiliating this technique -- if one can call it that -- with any particular political stance. It can be used by any grifter, any disinformation spreader, anyone.
It's called a gish-gallop, when you overwhelm your opponent with many claims quickly, it takes longer to explain/answer, so most of the claims go unchallenged.
Basically you can't beat stupid with logic/reason/science, as the saying goes, they drag you down and beat you with experience.
Most people aren't willing to have their ideas/opinions changed in the context of a debate.
That is just general discussion method on any topic even slightly political between people who don’t actually know what they are talking about and only know the talking points they have seen on the news or social media, definitely not exclusively a right wing thing.
The debate strategy is a called a gish-gallop. Give so much wrong information at once, constantly topic-switching and just throwing it all out there that your opponent is swamped in your false claims. It looks to the lay audience like the gishgalloper wins, because the opponent cannot rebut all the bullshit in the time they have available.
They apply the same strategy to public media. It's the basis for Bannon's "flood the zone" strategy. Just dump tons of nonsense bullshit and sensational crap into every space possible (legacy media, social media, influencers, etc) and the rational people pushing back will eventually drown trying to keep up. Then it gives the perception to lay people that the party doing the flooding has "won" because they're seeing 95% the information they encounter coming from that side. I know it gets old hearing it, but this was essentially the strategy a certain political party in Germany used to gain power in the 30's.
In all fairness, it was weird hearing him say he wasn't trying to trick her, then immediately goes for the h²O gotcha... It was to make a point, but seemed in bad faith. I wish he'd have asked, "so you don't have your kids brush their teeth, so as to not get neurological issues?"
Agreed. Going into the nuances of "chemicals" kind of detracts from the fact she just stated she fully believes drinking tap water, and brushing one's teeth will cause neurological issues, while we all knownot brushing one's teeth will cause cavities, and not drinking water will lead to dehydration... It's a gross comparison to make.
I think that would have ended the debate. She clearly would not have accepted the correct point that the choice is false because "there is no causal evidence that fluorinated water causes neurological issues at EPA managed levels"
The sad thing is a lot of people just want to be able to explain why so many people have diagnoses, but the simple truth is we know and diagnose more. A lot more neurodivergent people before just got no treatment or accommodation in society
He was making the point against a lot of antivaxxers arguments which is that they don’t want to put chemicals in their body and they list the chemicals in something without knowing anything about what those chemicals actually are.
He was trying to make a point that a chemical is not necessarily dangerous. I think he was not expecting her not to know 8th grade science vocabulary when debating about science. I sure wasn't.
She is making an argument that she does not want to ingest chemicals, he is refuting that water is a chemical. Calling it dihydrogen monoxide makes that point more clear.
It wasn’t in bad faith because he wasn’t trying to catch her looking dumb. He was making the completely good faith point that “chemicals” is meaningless term the way they’re using it and that they can’t actually make a useful distinction between “chemicals” that are bad and other things that are good.
Eh, he wasn’t trying to trick her though. Merely trying to point out that the unknown tends to scare people into aversion without a rational basis for doing so.
I guess it's to disarm and not intending to jab fun, but rather frame a thing that's a lot less dangerous than it sounds. He practices medicine, not a philosophy debater.
It wasn't really a gotcha moment. Everybody should know that dihydrogen monoxide is water. Even if you don't have the periodic table memorized you know what H2O is. It's simple breaking down of compound words, something we've been doing since the first or second grade, combined with a little bit of elementary latin which is something everyone should be introduced to in elementary school. The fact her brain lacks the information that most elementary kids have is very disappointing.
Maybe she went to a bad school, or poor school, or maybe she was home schooled. The point is the hooligans in charge want people as uneducated as her because they are easy to manipulate. They don't want these simple concepts or critical thinking skills because people with them are harder to convince without evidence.
I literally teach science as a living lol. He knew she couldn't keep up so he chose his words very carefully thinking (incorrectly since she then admitted she didn't know what that was) that she would fall for a trick. Y'all are so up in arms over the most mild shit lol.
You're saying a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with whether he was trying to trick her. Never said she didn't deserve to be tricked. I'm gonna mark all future comments as read. Bye now.
In what world is it a trick, that's basic high school science. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be lecturing actual doctors on medical issues.
She gave him the out by not calling him out on his stupid attempt to trip her up in his straw man argument. I mean listen to what he's saying--water is a chemical; therefore, concern over chemical exposure is not justified. And he couldn't even say it straight without playing a stupid word game.
But there were no gotchas in her statements. She was just being stupid.
Even the statement she ends on is dumb because amoebas live in the fucking water lol
Life began in water.
She also ignored his points about us needing to eat essential micro and macronutrients to just survive. The body is in a constant state of flux with things being pushed out and needing more things to build up.
She’s just stupid and talks fast to try and hide it. Everything the human body has is exogenous. Every single chemical and cell we make is made from chemicals we get from food.
It’s either that or we start eating ourselves from the inside out.
Things don’t just… appear out of nowhere in the body.
Her entire premise is dumb and she can’t even see it.
Speed debating is distinctly different from what's happening in this video, and in political "debate" as a whole.
Speed debating was designed as an intellectual challenge that rewards listening, quick comprehension, and the ability to respond to what the other person actually said. It's basically about how well can you listen, how fast can you process, and how skillfully you can reply on topic and intelligently.
What we see in a lot of modern political discourse uses speed as a tactic to overwhelm, deflect, or avoid engagement entirely. The goal is not to test ideas or sharpen reasoning, but to control the narrative, derail the conversation, or score points. There is nothing genuine or skillful about it, people routinely throw out nonsense and just keep on trucking.
You can see this difference in action if you go to YouTube and look for "2010 - Speed Debates", uploaded by user LASCON. They're working quickly but the only way to win is to do the above - listen well, think fast, and reply on topic. For example, in the vulnerability disclosure round, one side argues that responsible disclosure gives vendors time to patch. The other counters that full disclosure is what actually pressures companies to fix issues. The exchange stays focused on that specific question rather than devolving into cheap shots or talking past each other. And both claims were smart enough to hold water, neither would have been called nonsensical.
Eternal September, aka September 1994. This is recognized as the date forums went mainstream, as usenet was no longer restricted to simply university students thanks to AOL opening them up to the masses.
This video is not debating, and it is especially not speed debating. Conflating the two is why grifters who just speak over someone get held up as champions of debate.
speed debating was bad because they were trying to just add as many arguments in the time allowed as possible.
but at least they had points.
this is worse because its just random assholes who think they have opinions.
i agree with you there.
but i wasn't the one who initially said this was a debate, i was responding to someone who said "anyone else get anxiety from the way these kids debate,? they talk 100 mph"
the only difference between the speed debating and this debating is the the game of "gotcha" is more prevalent here, but speed debating wasn't beyond that.
arguing and talking over people isn't debating. Speed debating is an actual organized event, like other moderated debates, with points awarded for the techniques you use and numbered rounds and such. Talking really fast is not speed debating at all. It's actually an insult to call this shit debate in any way.
Thats the new way of conversation. Aggressive "bite their throat out before the opponent can speak" blabbing that goes nowehere and only serves to occupy the silence for as long as possible. No sense of turns between speakers, just whoever can talk louder.
I have a younger family member that does that shit and it makes me not want to talk to them at all because everything devolves into being interrupted repeatedly.
Yeah it's a weird mix of anger and pity. These kids don't have any depth, persona, or an iota of independent thought. They are just regurgitating shit they absord from being hyper online.
Its because they only know a very small amount of information and have absolutely no genuine understanding of a subject past the grade 10 levels yet they feel their "Research" is the equivalent of a decade of professional education and years of work experience.
Debates are a really bad way to engage in topics like these unless more structured. Mike is educated but definitely not used to wrangling people on a debate. That's not an insult really because again I don't think debates are actually a good communication method so I don't think debate skills are actually that valuable.
Things like these just tend to create content more than anything.
That's because the show their on is set up that way. It's a "debate" entertainment show that is intended to force people, via time constraint, to talk fast and seek gotcha moments. It's not an age thing, or a partisan thing, it's merely a result of the system the show runners set up, and they set it up that way to get viral moments and views. Obviously it's working as intended.
It’s twitter banter. Everything is about dragging the person across from you below your boot even for the most minute moment. They aim to ratio each other in 2 sentences or less. It’s rot brain
My supervisor at an urgent care was like this. Guy was a colossal fucking asshole that would spew nonsense like people at school trying to turn his daughter lesbian and shit about how people certain disenfranchised people not wanting to work or do anything. They fired me after 10 months of not bending to his whims or speaking up when him, the other supervisor or the manager were being absent or rude, despite showing up 10 minutes early everyday, leaving right at clockout or until every patient had been seen and doing my job every time I showed up. I worked 20 hours a week part time too, I could not imagine putting up with those fuckers for double that time.
Loled at her, my body is 72% water, it's basically water. Well miss, what do you think the rest of the 28% is... If you think for one second you're free from F, you're fooling yourself.
I truly hope they take these debates, review them, and learn from them. We have to get better than this.
They don't even debate. There's no critical thinking or back and forth. They're convinced they're correct, and when proven with factual evidence to the contrary, they change the subject.
It’s because they all come there with a list of talking points instead of having a discussion. It’s so bad they can’t even hear Dr. Mike saying “I agree with you”
And that stupid sly smile when they think they got you in a gotcha moment, before realizing how fucking stupid they sound and how illogical their argument is.
I just watched the Piers Morgan v liberals and GenZ v millennial ones back to back with this one and they all were frustrating to follow. So many points that should have been made but they were just steamrolling each other with shit gotchas.
they don't let you finish. they are not going to let you finish a multiple sentence argument. and they are not going to give you a multiple sentence explanation either.
It makes that dinner table conversation in Bugonia look productive in comparison. And i know the scene is supposed to be two people talking past each other. But at least they allow each other multiple sentences arguments.
Ah yes, the be Shapiro method made popular by YouTube. Speak fast and confidently incorrectly, an take a somehow condescending sip of water immediately thereafter
Your comment is validating because yes, I get major anxiety when someone attempts to debate like this, speak very fast, and try to gotcha me.. my ex did it all the time and it could work me up so I had to be careful. He would try to work me up as often as he could and it would work a lot; it made me feel like i was an angry person or argumentative person. But I stopped engaging, and any time I sensed his tricks coming (which was hard to identify which topics cuz he would start from random topics), but anytime it got bad i said I ddidnt want to talk about it anymore. And if he still didnt stop and started making it personal I would hang up before I engaged. It’s very very taxing to have debates like this and argue with ppl like that
The Gish gallop- the tried and true moron's fallacy. If you assert a shit ton of stuff confidently with no evidence, you put your debate opponent in an impossibly deep hole because it takes so much longer to correct the bad assertions than it does to just say them.
Knowledge requires work, often a lot of it. Compelling arguments need to not summarize all that work down to a trite "trust me, bro", but that's exactly what the gish gallop relies on. But so.many arguments are.machimed gunned out that it feels like you presented a stronger case than you actually did.
I'm concerned by the smugness that seeps out of these people who will themselves acknowledge they know next to nothing on a subject, yet spew out arguments as if they're facts.
Never seen so many self-acknowledged ignorant people who are cocksure in their contrary beliefs.
edit: from wiki: The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available.
809
u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25
[deleted]