Discussion Style in TAE 12/04/2011

[sepia]

I was asked in another forum about the name of a special discussion style, but I didn't know the answer.

It was described as follows: The aim is to give as many arguments as possible to overflood the discussion partner. After a while disagreement makes no sense, because the discussion point of the discussion is permanently moved.

After the user, who asked, one example is the following episode from TAE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ka20H7xm0o

My thoughts:

1) moving the goalpost

2) hairstack answer

But I'm not sure. What do you think?

[Lausten]

I would go with "proof by verbosity" also known as "gish gallop". I took this out of wikipedia. It has links with further explanation. How's that sound?

Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)

[DjVortex]

Shotgun argumentation could also apply (present as many arguments as possible, trying to give the impression that simply the sheer amount of arguments supports your position).

[sepia]

The term Proof by verbosity sounds good, since it deals with the amount of given information. The Shotgun Argument does this as well.

But I wonder, if it is the same fallacy, when the apologist, like the caller in the Episode does just add new arguments after his old arguments were defeated and not claim all arguments at once.

[Lausten]

You might have something there sepia. All of these fallacies are similar, basically the same idea of presenting lots of arguments without settling any particular one of them. But each has it's own subtle uniqueness.

My understanding, which is far from scholarly, is that verbosity implies one long argument with lots of tangents built into. Responders might try to pick it apart, but the arguer would resist that. Gish gallop is just another name for that one.

Moving the goalposts implies a starting point and some change or addition to the argument once it is refuted. This guy was not that linear.

I think there may be one we haven't named, wherein the arguer says something like "well, there are just too many open questions here, too many mysteries".

Shotgun might fit best, I don't think it requires that the entire argument hits you all at once. Many parts come at you quickly, and as soon as you respond to one, another pellet hits you somewhere else. The response to this one is simply to point out that each issue is remaining unresolved. If you are allowed to take each point, one at a time, the arguments are usually simple.