(Remark: after thinking a bit more about it, I arrived at „flooding with information“.)

I‘m looking for a word (maybe an expression or phrase), where one party „B“ hands in so much information/„evidence“ to the other party „A“ that it becomes unfeasible for „A“ to work through the information to verify or falsify a specific claim at hand, and A has to surrender and walk out as ‚loser‘ of the discussion.


Law: A requests some files, because he knows that something is wrong. B hands in so many files with irrelevant/redundant information, etc., etc. that for A it becomes practically impossible to find the problem.

Conspiracy: B argues for some kind of strange conspiracy theory and hands in so much sources and hops from one conclusion to the next, that it becomes infeasible for A to pinpoint the mistake(s) within reasonable time. For instance B says: here is the source for some numbers, I‘ve run this script on those numbers, I used the results as request-parameters to some service, which then returned that information, which I run through this other script and here I give you a screenshot of the results. But for A already having to verify the trustworthiness of the first source of the numbers is already difficult and then he would have to run and read all the scripts, etc.. thereby not finding a solid argument for ‚where‘ the mistake is.

  • 1
    Not sure exactly how relevant it is to your exact context, but from Wikipedia: Overchoice or choice overload is a cognitive impairment in which people have a difficult time making a decision when faced with many options. It seems to me being presented with too much evidence is much the same as having too many choices. Nov 11, 2020 at 13:39
  • I'm familiar with the term information overload. Nov 11, 2020 at 14:12
  • A simple choice is snow: He snowed me with so many boxes of mail that I needed recovery after that discovery. Nov 11, 2020 at 14:13
  • Duplicate? english.stackexchange.com/q/373465/191178 (I would just say the person is wasting your time.)
    – Laurel
    Nov 11, 2020 at 14:26
  • 1
    @Laurel not really.. I don’t mean ‚dancing around’. And no, it‘s not about wasting your time. It‘s about making an argument. It‘s about a debate, where one can‘t argue. B is really serious about his position. He truly is convinced of the conspiracy theory for instance, but he puts the burden of proving him wrong on you with so huge amounts of information, that you simply are not willing to try to go all the way. The issue is that in the end he will be like „I knew you couldn‘t prove me wrong. Ha!“.. Nov 11, 2020 at 14:35

2 Answers 2


I suggest swamp

swamp =

If something swamps a person, system, or place, more of it arrives than can be easily dealt with

Cambridge dictionary

Hence we may say that B swamps A with too much information. This usage is consistent with my own experience.

  • Yes. This sounds pretty good. It actually brings me to the idea of „flooding someone with information“. Thanks! Nov 11, 2020 at 14:38

Consider inundate

Defined by Collins as :

  1. to overwhelm with a rush or great amount of anything

This is in the sense of flooding as seen in Collins' first definition:

  1. to cover or engulf with a flood; deluge

So in your example:
B inundated A with so many files that it became practically impossible to find the problem.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.