Eric Daugherty on X: "🚨 HOLY SMOKES. Ceuta, Spain's population has reportedly increased from roughly 80,000 to 132,500 in 24 hours because of the flow of 3rd world savages Around 50,000 invaders flowed in across one day...immediately raiding homes and clashing with locals A DIRE WARNING for the https://t.co/Orjtj7AYqD" ⁠96%

By Eric Daugherty⁠100%

7/31/2026, 4:51:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 755 faulty-reasoning hits from 108 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠96% (1,028 of 25,563 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.00% of the article peer group.

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. 
Ceuta, Spain's population has reportedly increased from roughly 80,000 to 132,500 in 24 hours because of the flow of 3rd world savages 
Around 50,000 invaders flowed in across one day...immediately raiding homes and clashing with locals 
A DIRE WARNING for the entire West. 
Ceuta is cooked unless they are all removed...it's basically not Spain anymore! 
🇪🇸 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 5.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 25.9%Eric Daugherty: 13.0%CNN Politics: 5.5%Availability Heuristic25.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Eric Daugherty: 5.3%CNN Politics: 10.2%Framing Effect21.3%This article: 11.1%Eric Daugherty: 5.6%CNN Politics: 0.8%Loss Aversion11.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 44.4%Eric Daugherty: 19.7%CNN Politics: 2.5%Pessimism Bias44.4%This article: 88.0%Eric Daugherty: 67.1%CNN Politics: 14.3%Negativity Bias88.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 6.7%CNN Politics: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 51.9%Eric Daugherty: 52.8%CNN Politics: 5.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias51.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 10.2%CNN Politics: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 20.4%CNN Politics: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 1.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 11.1%Eric Daugherty: 8.3%CNN Politics: 0.9%False Dilemma11.1%This article: 11.1%Eric Daugherty: 14.4%CNN Politics: 2.1%Slippery Slope11.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 66.7%Eric Daugherty: 65.7%CNN Politics: 10.9%Hasty Generalization66.7%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.6%Eric Daugherty: 1.4%CNN Politics: 0.7%Bandwagon5.6%This article: 99.1%Eric Daugherty: 49.5%CNN Politics: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion99.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 25.9%Eric Daugherty: 6.5%CNN Politics: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 7.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.4%Eric Daugherty: 5.1%CNN Politics: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 78.7%Eric Daugherty: 19.7%CNN Politics: 4.0%Unattributed Quote78.7%This article: 6.5%Eric Daugherty: 1.6%CNN Politics: 2.4%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 100.0%Eric Daugherty: 88.9%CNN Politics: 9.1%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 31.5%Eric Daugherty: 10.6%CNN Politics: 2.5%Indoctrination31.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 50.7%CNN Politics: 5.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Daugherty: 0.0%CNN Politics: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

108 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker45%attributed speech59writer words
Selected voice

Eric Daugherty on X

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+39.0 ptsWriter: 61.0%Eric Daugherty on X: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+0.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Eric Daugherty on X: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+24.6 ptsWriter: 20.3%Eric Daugherty on X: 44.9%44.9%Quote-first Misdirection+14.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Eric Daugherty on X: 14.3%14.3%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.