Jelly Roll and Bunnie Xo Finalize Divorce: Report ⁠38%

By Charisma Madarang⁠41%

7/17/2026, 10:53:55 PM

Topics: Divorce

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 45.5% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 575 faulty-reasoning hits from 268 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠38% (13,287 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.70% of the article peer group.

Jelly Roll and Bunnie Xo have finalized their divorce after 10 years of marriage. 
The two reached a settlement earlier this month, according to TMZ, which was first to report the news. 
While the exact details remain confidential, court documents obtained by the outlet show that Jelly (real name Jason DeFord) and Bunnie (Alyssa DeFord) are splitting an aircraft, cars, homes, and their intellectual properties. 
A source also confirmed the exes’ finalized divorce to People. 
The country star will make a one-time, confidential payment to Bunnie, and alimony claims won’t be made in court, according to the outlet. 
Reps for Jelly and Bunnie did not immediately return Rolling Stone‘s requests for comment. 
Jelly reportedly filed for divorce from Bunnie in May in a Williamson County, Tennessee, court. 
According to court docs, the singer cited “irreconcilable differences,” saying he and Bunnie were “unable to live together successfully as Husband and Wife.” 
Bunnie and Jelly tied the knot at a Las Vegas chapel in 2016. 
Throughout his rise in the music industry, Jelly often credited Bunnie for supporting him financially and grounding him through years of struggle. 
Seven years later, they renewed their vows at the same chapel. 
Despite their divorce, Jelly and Bunnie are planning to have a baby together. 
In an episode of her podcast, Dumb Blonde, Bunnie said, “That’s my fucking best friend, dude. 
Like, I love him … You guys are going to be shocked to hear this, but we’re still having a baby … We have been the most unconventional couple that you guys have ever encountered.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.9%Charisma Madarang: 2.8%Rolling Stone: 2.8%Confirmation Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Charisma Madarang: 2.9%Rolling Stone: 3.1%Availability Heuristic12.3%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Charisma Madarang: 0.6%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias12.3%This article: 4.9%Charisma Madarang: 5.7%Rolling Stone: 5.6%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.0%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.1%Charisma Madarang: 1.9%Rolling Stone: 1.9%Optimism Bias13.1%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.6%Charisma Madarang: 9.4%Rolling Stone: 7.3%Negativity Bias21.6%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.8%Rolling Stone: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.4%Rolling Stone: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Charisma Madarang: 6.9%Rolling Stone: 4.8%Halo Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Charisma Madarang: 2.4%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Recency Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 45.5%Charisma Madarang: 5.3%Rolling Stone: 3.4%Appeal to Authority45.5%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 3.3%Rolling Stone: 5.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.5%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.1%Charisma Madarang: 7.9%Rolling Stone: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion13.1%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.7%Rolling Stone: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.8%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.1%Charisma Madarang: 1.9%Rolling Stone: 2.3%Anecdotal13.1%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.2%Charisma Madarang: 3.4%Rolling Stone: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.2%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.4%Charisma Madarang: 4.1%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Unattributed Quote25.4%This article: 19.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.7%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection19.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 6.8%Rolling Stone: 8.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.6%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.2%Rolling Stone: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

268 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech217writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBunnie Xo • 16 words • 100.0% coverageBunnie Xo • 35 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bunnie Xo

100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words100% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Bunnie Xo: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+53.4 ptsWriter: 15.2%Bunnie Xo: 68.6%68.6%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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