Liar, Liar . . . Pants on Fire

Debating the School Yard Bully

Cartoon courtesy of Liza Donnelly

---

Watching the recent Presidential debate (or should I say “debacle”), I was simultaneously offended by both the overwhelming number of Trump’s untruths and the brutish manner in which he delivered them. I’m not all that familiar with the decorum of a debate process, but it certainly seemed to me that even the barest respect for the circumstance was absent. In many instances President Biden had to choose whether he should respond to provocative and spurious accusations or present in calm contrast his administration’s accomplishments, hopes and plans for the future. As we know, under the circumstances, neither choice was as effective as the President might have wished.

As Jeanne pointed out in our Substack last week, Heather Cox Richardson referred to Trumps verbosity as the "Gish gallop,” a term coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott and further defined by Wikipedia as “a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by abandoning formal debating principles, providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments and that are impossible to address adequately in the time allotted to the opponent.” By “spewing a firehose of falsehoods” the galloper “wastes the opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.”

And what kind of “independent fact-checking” could be provided DURING a debate?  Thus far it seems that the best we can expect is a review of a statement’s veracity the following day—a review which may or may not include the information we’re particularly interested in, dependent on the news source that offers it.   

During my solo section at a recent PYNPS (Peter Yarrow Noel Paul Stookey) concert, I suggested a way in which we might be provided with informational accuracy within minutes rather than hours. Why not use Artificial Intelligence—a technology based on the accumulation of an enormous amount of data—to advise us as to whether what we’re being told is factual?  It is possible for spoken word to quickly be turned into printed word by programs like Descript and reviewed immediately by an AI program like ChatGPT.  

Admittedly, there are several cautions that come to mind, not the least of which is the fact that many of the factual references were not expressed in complete sentences, but rather as opinions or incomplete portions of other thoughts. Nonetheless, I feel on balance having ChatGPT provide immediate response to the general dialogue would be a great resource and an adjunct to our viewing the next debate in September.  

As an example, I picked an arbitrary point in the recent debate where Trump is speaking and sent the audio to Descript, which produced text that I subsequently fed to ChatGPT to get the following response:

[The statements appear] to be a mix of claims and opinions from former President Trump about his own administration's handling of COVID-19 and criticisms of President Biden's administration. Let's analyze the truthfulness of these statements:

1. "We were going to have something that nobody else has had. We got hit with COVID."

   True. The Trump administration faced the unexpected challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had significant impacts on the United States and the world.

2. "We did a lot to fix it. I gave him an unbelievable situation with all of the therapeutics and all of the things that we came up with. We gave him something great."

   Partially true. The Trump administration did implement Operation Warp Speed, which accelerated vaccine development. Therapeutics and vaccines were indeed developed during his tenure.

3. "More people died under his administration [Biden’s] than our administration. And we were right in the middle of it."

   False. The majority of COVID-19 deaths in the United States occurred during the Trump administration, not Biden's. Biden took office after a significant portion of the pandemic had already passed.

4. "He did the mandate, which is a disaster mandating it. The vaccine went out. He did a mandate on the vaccine, which is the thing that people most objected to about the vaccine."

   Partially true/opinion. President Biden did implement vaccine mandates for certain sectors, which did face opposition and legal challenges. Whether it was a disaster or not is a matter of perspective.

5. "He did a very poor job. Just a very poor job. And I will tell you, not only poor there, but throughout the entire world, we're no longer respected as a country."

   Opinion. Assessments of how well President Biden has handled various issues, including COVID-19 and international relations, vary widely and are subjective.

6. "We've become like a third world nation. And it's a shame the damage he's done to our country."

   Opinion. This characterization of the United States as resembling a third world nation due to Biden's actions is highly subjective and not factual.

7. "I'd love to ask him and will why he allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails and mental institutions to come into our country and destroy our country."

   False and misleading. There is no evidence to support the claim that millions of people from prisons, jails, and mental institutions were allowed to enter the United States under Biden's administration.

In summary, while some parts of the statement are based on actual events or policies, much of it reflects personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims. It's important to critically evaluate such statements and seek factual information when discussing complex issues like public health and governance.

Prior to this writing, most of my online references have been less than serious (e.g., the “Virtual Party” song) but we live in challenging times. As surprising as this post topic may have been, for you, my hope is that it has increased your appetite for informational clarity and as we approach the next debate in September, that there will be some improvements made in our ability to quickly discern fact from fiction, truth from lies, which will encourage us to make our decisions correspondingly.  

---

Connections

24 hours after the debate, PBS was able to provide a more in-depth fact-check.  See it here

Please  consider contacting an agency such as VoteSmart to encourage development and placement of simultaneous fact-checking on their website.

Vibrations

For a break in the political intensity and a chance to witness the lighter side of online relationships, see Noel’s video of Virtual Party. 

Resonance

Who might you encourage us to contact to obtain real-time fact-checking for the next debate?  Would you find it helpful to have informational assistance in time for the September debate?