Mitt Romney's over the top October 3rd debate performance used a technique forbidden in policy debates known as "spreading" taken to a creationist extreme.
Policy debaters started talking fast in the 1960s, when a team from the University of Houston figured out that speed allowed them to cram more arguments into a timed speech than their opponents would physically be able to negate. -- Jay Caspian Kang Wired, "High School Debate at 350 WPM"
Romney's version of that technique, known as the Gish Gallop, developed by Duane Gish, the creationist, combined spreading with purposeful lying, resulting in the "flood of B.S. technique" that Romney used to dominate the first debate with President Obama. It's common among creationists and climate science deniers refuse to debate on the merits by flooding their opponents with false information leaving them without time to keep up with the lies and, as a result, appearing pedantic and professorial in their responses.
From Rational Wiki:
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education.
It's unclear whether team Obama was aware of the technique or if they expected Romney to act like an actual presidential contender instead.
The "Gish Gallop"... usually characterized as "lists", titled "100 reasons why..." or similar. Thus, the points raised in the gallop are often very short and non-specific. It takes a lot of effort to fully refute everything and it is far easier for the galloper to add another question than it is for the respondent to formulate a suitable answer, which is the point behind the tactic.
An example in the climate science arena, a "Climate Gish Gallop of Epic Proportions," shows how climate change deniers flood the debate with so many points already proven false that the person listening to or reading their presentation simply can't keep up with all the rebuttals.
The lies win.
The Rational Wiki lists the prime current abusers of this technique as:
Dinesh D'Souza
Scott Huse
Mitt Romney
From the Talk Origins Archive, on how to debate a creationist:
On Monday, March 14, 1994, Kutztown University astronomer Carlson Chambliss debated Institute for Creation Research biochemist Duane Gish. Chambliss defended evolution and Gish defended creationism. The debate was a typical example of Gish's ability to control the terms of the debate and make outrageous statements of "fact" seem perfectly reasonable to a sympathetic audience.
Talk Origins has the following points for anyone debating a Gish Galloper:
Point #1: Know your audience
Point #2: Don't be the dull lecturer
Point #3: Be prepared for standard Gish evasions
Point #4: Avoid arrogance, appeal to authority, and similar attitudes and tactics
President Obama was clearly acting on point #4. On the other points, it's difficult to know if his debate prep included Gish Galloping. Since Romney's use of the technique is bound to be exposed by more than just this post, it's also difficult to know if he'll try it at the next debate or if the next moderator will be as badly equipped to deal with it as Jim Lehrer proved to be.
The president will need to prepare for the possibility of a flood of Gish Galloping, as Romney is reading from a script and is not a spontaneous man. President Obama will also have to consider that Romney might not use it again and prepare for the copious other techniques, equally as despicable, that may be brought to bear.
For the good of the American people, I hope Romney will consider foregoing the flood of galloping lies. President Obama is correct. We deserve to be told the truth. I won't count on Romney doing that and neither should the president. He needs to be ready for whatever Romney brings next.
One last note, to the pundits, if you don't know what Romney was up to, learn about it. Don't sing his praises and call him authentic, the real Romney, found his voice. He wasn't and he didn't. Romney was channeling an extreme right- wing creationist who took the illegal debate technique called spreading -- talking fast, not giving your opponent a chance to react -- and modified it to make that fast talking full of one lie after another, as evidenced by Mitt Romney last Wednesday.
To the next debate moderator, if Romney does it again, ask him he's Gish Galloping or spreading. Remind the audience the debate technique is forbidden in schools because it's considered in violation of the spirit of debate, which is supposed to be an exchange of ideas.
In other words, it's cheating and will get the debater thrown off the team. Hopefully, the American people will be smarter than the pundits and moderators and do exactly that to Romney, throw him out for cheating, lying and not acting in the spirit of our democracy, in November.
Note: "spreading" is not yet forbidden in school policy debates, where the practice has become widespread.
Follow Janet Ritz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janetritz
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Watch the debate and notice that he essentially kept repeating what he said in his opening statements as his only response. He wasn't thinking on his feet. Just repeating the same words over and over.
Romney: Isn't that willful and purposeful speed lying?
Advisor: Yes.
Romney: What is the purpose?
Advisor: Confuse Obama. Throw him off his game.
Romney: Will the American public notice?
Advisor: No, they are too dumb.
Romney: What about the real-time fact checkers?
Advisor: First impressions are all that matter.
Romney: What about the moderator?
Advisor: He will give you time limits and will confuse your speed lying with trying to convey as many real points in the allotted time frame.
Romney: What about the media?
Advisor: Their factual analysis of your lies will be conceived as sour grapes from Obama supporters.
Romney: Should I worry that there are two more debates or that everything I've said over the past two years is on tape and Obama has a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars to create "flip flop" ads?
Advisor: No. You will be way ahead by that point and everyone loves a winner.
Romney: Won't I be confused between what I really think and these hundreds of fabricated lies? How will I keep this all straight in my mind and actually deliver this new message?
Advisor: Don't worry, you are only 65. You are not even eligible for Social Security yet under your real plan (both start laughing).
Romney: Final question... How come it seems easier to win this debate by just understanding the issues and articulating my policies and vision?
Don't say "ask the moderator". That won't work because it makes you look weak.
What SHOULD Obama do. Gallop back?
Romney was disgraceful in the debate. I am among the 20% who thought Obama won, because lying is an automatic disqualifier.
F&F
and tell me why this article is in the Climate change section?
Liberals all upset???/
Then he lied again.
After that, he lied.
If he didn't want lies to stand, he should have sat down.
But there is always more than one point of view. That's why our country is still a democracy. Time Magazine 10/15/12, puts the "Fact Wars" in context. Their conclusion is that who lies more is "another close contest," that different interpretations can be valid, and that how people digest news can be biased against reality.
1. Words spoken during the debate:
Romney: 7,364 - 53.3%
Obama: 6,427 - 46.6%
Romney spoke 6.7% more words.
2. Speaking Time:
Romney: 43 minutes
Obama: 37 Minutes
Romney spoke for 5 more minutes
3. Leher's Statistics:
Words: 1,749
Time: 10 Minutes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/04/the-first-presidential-debate-by-the-numbers/
I hate Fox and Fox-lite CNN too.
Fill the airwaves full of lies, false arguments and comparisons, then let his blind followers parrot them over and over again on media outlets and in print.
Sooner or later you have a fully uninformed electorate that will do anything you tell them.
Wonder where that will lead?
-- Adolph HItler
The fact of the matter is that Romney was confident and articulate because he understands the issues and was well prepared. Obama came with a script to read and thus was was unable to think on his feet and respond to any criticism other than with a blanket statement that always ended with "words words words... middle class".
To see the differences in their performances, compare their answers to the question on the importance of government and the role of government. Obama answered with his duty to protect the American people, and it was a sincere response. But then he trailed off afterward. Romney, on the other hand, improvised and mentioned the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that were presented on the wall behind them, and then described 4-5 key items from those documents.
When Obama was criticized, he looked downward, clenched his jaw, stared back at the moderator, sometimes nodded his head which appeared to affirm his challenger's comments, and then genuinely fumbled his response. Romney wrote down at one point Obama's criticism of him of 5 different topics from Obama's answer to a question, explained to the moderator that he needed time to respond directly to all of the criticisms, and then did so for each and every one - usually with a multi-faceted answer, looking directly back at Obama the whole time.
My objection was primarily to the writer's cynical suggestion that Romney employed a debate tactic built on purposeful lying. Yes, I'm conservative, but I'm a reasonably minded person and it was pretty clear to me that Romney won the debate based on knowledge, preparation, and strong communication, and Obama either simply wasn't prepared or chose to follow a strategy from his advisers to not engage.
And since the article was focused on lies, let's be fair - both parties use statistics or data in the most advantageous manner to support their position. Obama campaigned to create X million # of jobs. When that statistic could not be supported, the language changed to "created or saved" X million # of jobs (which is an almost impossible stat to define or refute btw). Now the language is created X million private sector jobs. All the while ignoring the private job sector job loss and the overall net reduction which is the real indicator of job strength. So the statistic used is technically correct and truthful, but at the same time could be argued is patently false and a lie because it presents a distorted answer to the "real" question.