Fox News89%

Oxford debate society leader who celebrated Charlie Kirk's shooting now apologizing to his family0%

By Rachel del Guidice0%

12/1/2025, 9:16:19 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Special Pleading, Hindsight Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 30.7% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 575 faulty-reasoning hits from 378 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

The former president-elect of the Oxford Union, the debating society at the University of Oxford, is apologizing to Charlie Kirk's family after previously celebrating Kirk's death. 
After Kirk's assassination on Sept. 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University, George Abaraonye, the past president-elect of the Oxford Union, reportedly wrote in a WhatsApp group of Union members: "Charlie Kirk got shot, let's f---ing go." 
He allegedly posted a similar message on Instagram. 
Abaraonye lost a no-confidence vote in October, meeting the two-thirds requirement to remove him from his position. 
"I had very little context for what I was reacting to, but I wanted to start a conversation… I missed the mark… and that's why I deleted and retracted my comments," he said, adding that his comments were made before the video of the shooting circulated online. 
"As soon as I saw how serious it was, I went on Instagram to apologize," he said. 
Abaraonye, a 20-year-old student studying philosophy, politics and economics at University College, Oxford, told The Times in an article published Friday that he wanted to apologize to Kirk's family. 
"I want to offer my apologies and my condolences," Abaraonye said. 
"No one deserves to lose a husband, no child deserves to grow up without a father. 
I hope that they are able, in some capacity, to move on from what was a tragic event and to that end, I am very sorry." 
Abaraonye was on the committee that brought Kirk to the Oxford Union in May. 
Abaraonye went head to head with Kirk, and he said that there was "extensive debate" about whether Kirk should be allowed to appear in the first place. 
Abaraonye said Kirk "didn't exist in a vacuum," telling The Times that, "He had national influence, he influenced policy decisions in America, he was someone who had almost a direct line to the president. 
He wasn't someone who could be ignored." 
He said that his initial comments reacting to Kirk's assassination were "without nuance and without having done research. 
I saw a headline and I reacted. 
I didn't take into account the nuance or consider that at all when I made the comments." 
He added he received abusive messages online for his comments. 
Fox News Digital reached out to Abaraonye for additional comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 2.4%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Rachel del Guidice: 4.3%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Rachel del Guidice: 5.3%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Rachel del Guidice: 13.6%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 10.8%Rachel del Guidice: 3.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error10.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 1.6%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 17.2%Rachel del Guidice: 2.9%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 5.0%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 2.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 16.7%Rachel del Guidice: 12.4%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 7.4%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 3.9%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 3.3%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 2.8%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 1.6%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 1.2%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 30.7%Rachel del Guidice: 2.6%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias30.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 2.2%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 1.8%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 6.2%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 7.0%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.9%Rachel del Guidice: 11.7%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion6.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 1.7%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 2.8%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 11.8%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.5%Rachel del Guidice: 3.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 10.8%Rachel del Guidice: 1.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring10.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 1.4%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 26.2%Rachel del Guidice: 1.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading26.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel del Guidice: 1.4%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.6%Rachel del Guidice: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque2.6%

378 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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