A possible different version of the Gish Gallop Fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I saw an argument today that went like this:
"Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton's emails, McCain's being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic. Happy Digging! Here you go, please read and pass it on..... "
There were 1000's of different related and unrelated documents in the link all scrambled up together so there is no way to verify the claims made that went along with the wikileak attachment.
It seems like the manipulation is that someone just shares that link with the attached claims and since there are so many pages no one reads it all but just assumes the claims attached are true.
What fallacy would this be? It doesn't rely on a debate setting where the opponent cant address all the arguments in time, but rather it uses way to many unrelated and possibly related unorganized sources than the reader could never sift through and read to verify the attached claims being made.
Answers
2It is certainly a version of the Gish Gallop, but I would say it would most accurately be simply a lie or at least deception. For example, if the document did not contain anything related to "Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper" it would be a lie. If the document did say, "looks like the Vegas shooter wasn't an FBI agent" then it would be deception.
I characterize this situation as Proof by Verbosity (Argumentum Verbosium). It is the submission of an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with within the time available. I can also see it as a variation of the Gish Gallop and the Argument from Authority and Proof by Intimidation.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course