England v. Argentina: More than a soccer match ⁠82%

By Noel S. Williams⁠95%

7/16/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 68.1% saturation with 277 hits. Analysis detected 1,607 faulty-reasoning hits from 407 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (3,951 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.00% of the article peer group.

It was an important soccer match - England v. 
Argentina in a semi-final of the World Cup. 
After deservedly taking the lead, England became possessed with the enervating spirit of Keir Starmer, rather than the indomitable spirit of Margaret Thatcher. 
If fortune favors the brave, their misfortune resulted from cowardice. 
Rather than take it to Argentina on the pitch, England retreated and proceeded to lose in defensive ignominy. 
On the day, Argentina proved they are better soccer players, but they are not better people. 
Actually, they are rather a nasty bunch who are well known for their "dark arts." 
Off the pitch, they impertinently refer to the Falkland Islands as Las Malvinas. 
If someone of Starmer's ilk had been prime minister in 1982, they probably would be. 
However, when the Argies tried to deny the Falklanders their right to self-determination, the Iron Lady was having none of it. 
She sent the Royal Navy down there to give them a darn good thrashing. 
After the soccer match, Argentina players flouted FIFA rules (punishment is pending) by unfurling before their fans an obnoxious banner with this message: "Las Malvinas son Argentinas," which translates as "The Falklands are Argentine." 
Go tell that to the Falklanders. 
They are a self-governing British Overseas Territory. 
In a 2013 referendum , 99 percent of voters chose to remain under British sovereignty. 
I shall repeat that: ninety-nine percent. 
Did Stalin ever get figures that high? 
It appears the nasty Argies care not one whit about the higher moral principle that has evolved in the nation-state era: an indigenous people's right to self-determination. 
Indigenous?! 
Wouldn't that be the Argies themselves? 
Not really. 
Not recently. 
The Falkland Islands are about 300 miles off Argentina's Coast - well out into internationally accepted international waters. 
Argentina had marginal control over the Falklands for only about ten years throughout history. 
France and Spain (1767-1811) showed more interest with various minor settlements. 
By contrast, Great Britain established a permanent settlement and has magnificently governed the archipelago since 1833. 
Their descendants are more "indigenous" than anyone; honor their wishes for self-determination. 
Perhaps subsumed by some complex, Argentina is desperate to secure some international respect, and soccer is one thing they do well. 
Nevertheless, their players' unseemly antics (egged on by fans and injudicious politicians) reflect unrefined human traits. 
You'll not find the better angels of our nature in their midst. 
Image generated by ChatGPT. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.4%Noel S. Williams: 7.8%American Thinker: 10.6%Confirmation Bias8.4%This article: 3.7%Noel S. Williams: 1.1%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias3.7%This article: 11.1%Noel S. Williams: 3.1%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 1.5%Noel S. Williams: 0.2%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic1.5%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.5%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Noel S. Williams: 1.4%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 1.5%Noel S. Williams: 3.5%American Thinker: 7.1%Framing Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.7%Noel S. Williams: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Noel S. Williams: 1.8%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias2.5%This article: 57.0%Noel S. Williams: 22.9%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias57.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.6%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Noel S. Williams: 16.3%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error14.7%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Noel S. Williams: 6.2%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 20.4%Noel S. Williams: 19.9%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias20.4%This article: 3.9%Noel S. Williams: 2.7%American Thinker: 2.6%Halo Effect3.9%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 5.2%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 2.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 1.2%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Noel S. Williams: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 26.0%Noel S. Williams: 27.1%American Thinker: 5.6%Ad Hominem26.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 2.7%American Thinker: 4.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.4%Noel S. Williams: 2.3%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority8.4%This article: 5.7%Noel S. Williams: 4.1%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 2.4%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 26.3%Noel S. Williams: 35.0%American Thinker: 16.8%Hasty Generalization26.3%This article: 2.7%Noel S. Williams: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring2.7%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.0%Noel S. Williams: 8.1%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion26.0%This article: 2.9%Noel S. Williams: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 2.9%American Thinker: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.4%Noel S. Williams: 1.0%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof8.4%This article: 9.6%Noel S. Williams: 1.6%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature9.6%This article: 7.9%Noel S. Williams: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division7.9%This article: 3.7%Noel S. Williams: 1.2%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal3.7%This article: 8.1%Noel S. Williams: 1.3%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman8.1%This article: 5.9%Noel S. Williams: 0.7%American Thinker: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.4%Noel S. Williams: 1.5%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote8.4%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 68.1%Noel S. Williams: 37.4%American Thinker: 22.9%Biased Writer Voice68.1%This article: 8.4%Noel S. Williams: 9.2%American Thinker: 5.9%Indoctrination8.4%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 24.3%Noel S. Williams: 13.3%American Thinker: 14.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias24.3%This article: 1.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.0%

407 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.4%attributed speech393writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMargaret Thatcher • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Margaret Thatcher

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+33.1 ptsWriter: 66.9%Margaret Thatcher: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -25.2 ptsWriter: 25.2%Margaret Thatcher: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Margaret Thatcher: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Margaret Thatcher: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Margaret Thatcher: 0.0%0.0%

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.