Group related assertions and identify those the conclusion depends on. Address the decisive claims carefully rather than matching speed with speed.
When a proposal lists dozens of benefits, ask which two or three justify the decision and examine their evidence. An error in one claim does not automatically refute the others.
How it works
A Gish gallop overwhelms an exchange with more assertions than the other side can examine in the available time. The problem is not simply that there are many claims. It is that volume, shallow support, and rapid topic shifts substitute for a coherent argument.
An unanswered claim is not automatically conceded. Nor does finding one false claim establish that every other claim is false. Both shortcuts replace evaluation with impressions.
How to recognize it
Look for disconnected assertions, citations presented too quickly to inspect, and a demand that every point be answered immediately. Ask how the claims connect to the conclusion and which ones are essential.
A detailed technical case is not necessarily a gallop. A good-faith author can supply sources, distinguish central from secondary claims, and accept a structured review.
How to respond
Group claims that depend on the same premise. Identify the strongest and most consequential points, then examine them with appropriate evidence. Be explicit about what has and has not been resolved.
If you control the format, agree on one issue at a time, a shared evidence record, and a written list of open questions. More structure can make review manageable without treating unresolved points as victories for either side.
The decision-review lesson
Prioritization is not evasion when its basis is explicit. The goal is to establish which claims support the decision—not to win a contest over who can produce or reject more sentences.