It's not a Gish Gallop because you've presented "a large number of evidence". It's a Gish Gallop because you've presented a large number of claims (you called out 4 specifically) each of which has extremely thin evidence and, in fact, when someone takes the time to investigate it, it's fairly easily debunked.
I already did #2.
For #1 this is information on Wikipedia about how the underlying data used by the professor was not sufficient to support his conclusions.
Just like how you didnt readily accept my link and presented me with an article debunking the vide, let me go deeper into the evidence presented by the debuking article with my analysis that should be easy for you to verify.
One of the images does show both yes and no filled, but that is the only one of the batch that is both filled.
But for the rest of the batch, some dont seem to have multiple markings, that is they seem to be fully valid. Some torn ballots also have both checkmarks and rectangles filled. It seem highly unusual that someone would fill the rectangle for all the categories and then come back and put checkmarks?
If someone accidentally put checkmarks instead of filling the rectangles. Then why would they come chose a different answer next time? As seen in the video where for many torn ballots one box is filled while other is checkmarked. [Sorry a picture would be helpful but you'll have to go therough the video manually]
My asserion is this: the provision for discarding a spoiled ballots was exploited and valid ballots were marked with checkmarks in order for them to be discarded.
You can also see from the long tails of the checkmarks that the person doing it was doing it quickly.
Also if it was spoiled ballot why were there only mostly Trump ballots? If you think it was a a staged video, we can certainly contact the poster's instagram and ask him about his intentions.
Regarding the Georgia video, the only thing the article says it that it was not a "suitcase" but a ballot box. Which doesn't dispute the fact that the ballot-box or "the suitcase" was pulled from under the table and then the ballots were counted after the poll watches were told to leave.
The Instagram post you've linked to here came up with a giant "false information: verified by independent fact checkers" label. You're citing random links and assertions, and when they're knocked down, you move on to new ones. That's what a Gish Gallop is.
The fallacy you're exploiting is the notion that we're not supposed to see your assertions failing (and you refusing to acknowledging those failures) and draw conclusions about the rest of your assertions. A reasonable person looks at this exchange and concludes that there's no particular reason to take any of your arguments seriously.
Just because a thinking falls in to a pattern of fallacy doesn’t mean that what I claim is wrong. You can check the video and read what I claim, think logically and ask yourself what are the cases where someone could check box for option A then fill another box. And honestly that’s just minute nothing of the many irregularities if you do go though the links.
Also, I’m not citing random links all of these show that there are many irregularities and there is suppression of information and free exchange. I choose only four out of thousand cause I don’t have the time and I don’t get paid.
Again, I dont live in America so Trump winning or losing directly doesn’t matter to me.
If you're unfamiliar with American politics, perhaps you're not Gish Galloping on purpose. I buy that could happen! But you should be aware that's what you're doing here, at the very least so you can understand why few people will be persuaded by your comments, despite the effort you're putting into them.
Verified by independent fact checkers, based on the same tweet from an official government account. Which claims that those were spoiled ballots. My comment and assertion still stands.
Just because you see “don’t look, trust me” doesn’t mean you should stop thinking there.
The overwhelmingly Republican Oklahoma State Board of Elections, appointed by the Republican governor of Oklahoma with the consent of the Republican Oklahoma State Senate, debunked this video specifically, down to the subprecinct.
This doesn't seem like a good faith argument, but that doesn't matter; I'm not interested in the argument, so much as I am in how this thread does in fact provide a pretty good illustration of what a Gish Gallop is.
Again, people who understand what a Gish Gallop is aren't going to be persuaded by anything you're saying, because they know the same tactics could be used to establish that up is down, or that pants are shirts. That's why 'harryh pointed this out to you.
You can't persuade people simply by being too tedious to argue with --- like you are here, where, when confronted with a refutation of one of your claims, you pretend not to have seen that and retreat to abstraction.
I already did #2.
For #1 this is information on Wikipedia about how the underlying data used by the professor was not sufficient to support his conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Miller#2020_Election
For #3 here is a reuters post debunking the assertion:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-oklahoma/fact-c...
For #4 here is a post from some Georgia press (the assertion was about fraud in Georgia) debunking the assertions:
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact...