Baron Coleman

I don't know what they were doing there.

Imagine, for example, a simple debate on economics.

The losing side might fixate on one outdated data point.

They hammer it as proof of incompetence.

And then they proclaim the entire case collapses.

They declare victory and they never address the macro, the larger construct of the argument.

They don't address things like expert consensus or even their own contradictions.

And viewers, if they're tuned out or maybe deeply or emotionally invested in seeing the losing side win, they're able to walk away thinking the gotcha side won, even if the other side very much had the upper hand.

This is bad faith.

This is bad faith debating.

If not outright intellectual dishonesty, it overlaps with several logical fallacies.

Thank you, Joe.

Your book had a large part in helping put this together.

It overlaps with several logical fallacies, but it isn't neatly packed into any one of them.

It resembles quibbling, where one side focuses on some trivial objection to derail the main point, or even cherry-picking, where you highlight one favorable detail and you ignore the rest.

But the twist here is the premature declaration of victory, and it treats that isolated incident as a checkmate.

And there's this really rookie debate tactic.

It's overused and, frankly, very rookie.

It's known as Gish Gallop.

I don't know if you've ever heard of that.