PicoBlog

Recently, I listened to an interview by Guy Kawasaki on his Remarkable People podcast. He interviewed British Journalist Mehdi Hasan on his new book "Win Every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking."

While I consider myself an accomplished arguer, Hasan grabbed my attention with his description of one technique that is confounding. Hasan pointed out a rhetorical device  in debate called "The Gish Gallop." Under this form of argumentation, the arguer rapidly spouts a firehose of misinformation: half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Because of the format of the debate, the responding party can’t deal with the flood of untruths and is effectively stymied. 

I see it in court. Trying to respond to a tsunami of misinformation reminds me of a brief I read a few years ago where the author referred to herself as resembling a mosquito in a nudist camp.  "I know what to do, I just don't know where to begin." 

From my experience, most who act this way do so from ill preparedness rather than overt dishonesty. Regardless, it’s effective. Often, judges glaze over and nothing gets done until there is an opportunity for a full hearing, which sometimes takes weeks, if not months. I think of these folks as octopi with briefcases, spewing out blinding ink to scuttle away from danger. 

This reminds me of another law of rhetoric, Brandolini's Law, which provides, "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." This law is particularly pernicious in a viral internet culture. But it is also pervasive in advocacy. I've often grappled with how to respond to the false claims that come from the pens and mouths of my opponents. It's hard work and near impossible to prove a negative! 

It seems I'm encountering more and more bullshit artists in our post-pandemic world. But this makes sense since we appear to exist in a post truth era, where facts don't matter as much anymore (but see Steven Pinker's spirited argument that we are not in such an era). I’m not certain whether we are or aren’t, but I know for certain that I’m seeing more mendacity in the courthouse. 

But off my soapbox and on to the point of this article. Hasan provides concrete strategies for dealing with strategic Gish Gallopers:

I would add a few more thoughts from my own experience. First, I find humor disarms rhetorical terrorists, "judge, Mr. Smith's arguments remind me of a quote by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” Or, “that argument makes complete sense as long as you don't think about it.” Finally, “justice should be blind, but not blind to reality.” Humor combined with verifiable counter facts deflates the effectiveness of the gallopers.

Anticipate. When you know your opponent relies on this type of conduct, come well prepared and anticipate the likely avenues they will travel. While you can never be 100% certain, if you have a history with this particular opponent, you can typically figure out the direction they will head and forearm yourself. 

Maintain your own credibility by being scrupulously honest. Ultimately judges will discern the truth tellers from the phonies. 

Essentially the best defense is to know the facts of your case and the law COLD. Be the most informed person in the courtroom. The great trial lawyer Dan Webb (who I recently interviewed for a top gun article) mirrors that advice. By mastering your case, and having instant access to the actual facts, it will enhance your credibility with the judge, and also expose the fragile fictions of your opponent galloping to his or her own tune. 

It's hard to compete with masters of blarney but stay the course, know your case, and call them out. The best way to dry up the firehose. 

ncG1vNJzZmirpZiwpr%2FSn6ylpJGsxqa%2Bjaysm6uklrCsesKopGioX5y2tLSMoJilpJ%2BlsrO%2FjJ2psmWlpXq1tMRmnaKqlZ28tLE%3D