BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 59.8% saturation with 238 hits. Analysis detected 486 faulty-reasoning hits from 398 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.4% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,065 of 21,196 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.70% of the article peer group.

The CSIS Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative are pleased to present the Sixteenth Annual CSIS South China Sea Conference. 
This full-day conference will feature keynote addresses and in-depth panel discussions on recent developments in disputed waters and the importance of the 10-year anniversary of the landmark South China Sea arbitration. 
Panels will address the state of play, legal developments and dispute management, evolving alliance networks, and the role of global stakeholders. 
Event Agenda 
8:30 am 
Check-In and Coffee 
Pre-Recorded Morning Keynote 
9:00 am 
Rep. 
Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) 
9:30 am 
Coffee Break 
Panel 1: State of Play in the South China Sea 
9:45 am 
Harrison Prétat, Deputy Director and Fellow, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, CSIS 
Natalie Sambhi, Founder and Executive Director, Verve Research 
Henrietta Levin, Senior Fellow, Freeman Chair in China Studies, CSIS 
Tu Lai, Research Fellow, East Sea Institute, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam 
10:45 am 
Break 
Panel 2: Ten Years After the Arbitration 
10:55 am 
Jay Batongbacal, Director, Institute for Maritime and Law of the Sea, University of the Philippines 
Robert Harris, Assistant Legal Adviser for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, United States Department of State 
Chi-Ting Tsai, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, National Taiwan University 
Diem Huong Ho, Associate, Foley Hoag LLP 
11:55 am 
Lunch Break 
Lunch Keynote 
12:15 pm 
Michael G. 
DeSombre, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Moderated by Gregory Poling, Senior Fellow & Director, Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative 
1:15 pm 
Break 
Panel 3: Evolving Security Networks 
1:30 pm 
Yuki Tatsumi, Senior Director, Institute for Indo-Pacific Security 
Charmaine Misalucha-Willoughby, Associate Professor, Department of International Studies, De La Salle University 
Bec Strating, Director, La Trobe Centre for Global Security and Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University 
Patrick M. 
Cronin, Asia-Pacific Security Chair, Hudson Institute 
2:30 pm 
Break 
Panel 4: The Role of Outside Parties 
2:40 pm 
Tanvi Madan, Senior Fellow, Center for Asia Policy Studies, Brookings Institution 
Alessio Patalano, Professor of War and Strategy in East Asia, King’s College London 
Kathryn Paik, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Australia Chair, CSIS 
Max Bergmann, Director, Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program and Stuart Center 
3:40 pm 
Closing Remarks and End 
This event is made possible by support from the FESS Foundation, the Embassy of Australia, the Embassy of Japan, the Embassy of New Zealand, and the Embassy of the Philippines. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 2.0%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.4%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 4.3%Framing Effect20.4%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 59.8%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 4.5%Appeal to Authority59.8%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.5%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice5.5%This article: 7.8%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 4.0%Indoctrination7.8%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Center for Strategic and International Studies: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…20.9%

398 words analyzed.

Speakers

19speakers58%attributed speech169writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageCSIS Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageEugene Vindman (D-Virginia) • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageHarrison Prétat, Deputy Director and Fellow, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, CSIS • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNatalie Sambhi, Founder and Executive Director, Verve Research • 8 words • 0.0% coverageHenrietta Levin, Senior Fellow, Freeman Chair in China Studies, CSIS • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTu Lai, Research Fellow, East Sea Institute, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJay Batongbacal, Director, Institute for Maritime and Law of the Sea, University of the Philippines • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Harris, Assistant Legal Adviser for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, United States Department of State • 16 words • 0.0% coverageChi-Ting Tsai, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, National Taiwan University • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDiem Huong Ho, Associate, Foley Hoag LLP • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMichael G. DeSombre • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageYuki Tatsumi, Senior Director, Institute for Indo-Pacific Security • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCharmaine Misalucha-Willoughby, Associate Professor, Department of International Studies, De La Salle University • 12 words • 0.0% coverageBec Strating, Director, La Trobe Centre for Global Security and Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick M. Cronin, Asia-Pacific Security Chair, Hudson Institute • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTanvi Madan, Senior Fellow, Center for Asia Policy Studies, Brookings Institution • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAlessio Patalano, Professor of War and Strategy in East Asia, King’s College London • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKathryn Paik, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Australia Chair, CSIS • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMax Bergmann, Director, Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program and Stuart Center • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverage
22 attributed words9.6% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CSIS Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +63.9 ptsWriter: 36.1%CSIS Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%CSIS Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative: 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.