MMAI! Watch the moment a robot is DECAPITATED during a brutal humanoid cage fight  yet keeps fighting 76%

By SHIVALI BEST78% SCIENCE94% TECHNOLOGY EDITOR94%

7/20/2026, 12:38:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.4% saturation with 292 hits. Analysis detected 1,974 faulty-reasoning hits from 742 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.1% and a BS Rank of 76% (4,983 of 20,381 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.60% of the article peer group.

From computer programmers to lawyers, several jobs are already at risk of being taken by artificial intelligence (AI). 
Now, it seems not even cage fighters are safe from the robot takeover. 
Shocking footage has emerged from China , showing two humanoids battling it out in a mixed martial arts (MMA) fight. 
The fight took place in Shenzhen last week, and saw two robots go head–to–head in a cage as hundreds of spectators looked on. 
In one particularly shocking moment, one of the robots had its head kicked off entirely  yet continued to fight. 
Taking to Reddit, one viewer said: 'Finally we have Real Steel,' in comparison to the 2011 blockbuster. 
Another warned: 'We're training the next generation lifeform on Earth how to defeat us. 
Poetic.' 
Elon Musk even joined in on the fun, sharing a video of the fight on X and joking: 'Robot fights are fun. 
' 
Shocking footage has emerged from China , showing two humanoids battling it out in a mixed martial arts (MMA) fight 
The fight took place as part of the Ultimate Robot Knock–out Legend (URKL) event at Shenzhen's Nanshan Cultural Sports Centre. 
This competition  dubbed the 'robot version of the UFC'  features 32 competitors from more than 20 countries. 
These teams have been whittled down from 200, and include the likes of Stanford University, the University of Hong Kong and Zhejiang University. 
'The competition adopts a comprehensive multi–stage tournament structure consisting of a Qualifying Stage, Group Stage, and Double–Elimination Finals,' EngineAI, the organiser of the competition, explains on its website. 
'The tournament is designed to comprehensively evaluate teams across simulation algorithms, on–site hardware deployment, and autonomous humanoid robot combat performance.' 
The teams all use EngineAI's T800  a full–size humanoid robot that retails for up to $85,000. 
According to the South China Morning Post, the prize for the winning team will be a belt made from 10kg of pure gold, worth up to 10 million yuan (£1.09 million). 
So far, several fights have taken place, but the one that has really stirred up interest on social media was between team Bullfighter and White Eagle 
The teams all use EngineAI's T800  a full–size humanoid robot that retails for up to $85,000 
Shortly after stepping into the specially designed hexagonal cage, the White Eagle robot delivered a devastating kick to its opponent's head, decapitating it entirely. 
Amazingly, Bullfighter's bot continued to fight completely headless  and even managed to bag a 3–2 win. 
Many viewers were left impressed by the robots' fighting abilities. 
'I would love to see the part of the code for dealing with a situation where your head is suddenly gone,' one fan joked on Reddit. 
Another added: 'Imagine a future where there's a massive dome filled with robots sponsored by different companies, fighting in a giant Battle Royale–style arena. 
Robots equipped with flamethrowers, machine guns, and all kinds of crazy weapons. 
I'd definitely pay to watch that.' 
And one joked: 'I like how the robot keeps going with his head detached. 
Robotic voice: "'tis but a scratch."' 
However, others have raised concerns that the fighting robots could be a glimpse into our future. 
One said: 'I don't think that is a good idea. 
Please just teach em to fold laundry and do dishes.' 
I worked for Apple. 
These secret iPhone tricks can save you from spending $1,000 on an upgrade... and the one fix that will make your device feel 'like brand new' 
The Big Question: Would you trust a robot around your family? 
With humanoids now able to complete mundane chores like folding the laundry, loading the dishwasher, and even boiling the kettle, you might be tempted to bring one into your home. 
However, a recent spate of incidents could sway your decision. 
Another asked: 'Is this what causes them to eventually rise up against us?' 
And one ominously said: 'The future keeps arriving much faster than I imagined.' 
This isn't the first time a humanoid robot has raised eyebrows in recent months. 
Earlier this year, a humanoid hit the headlines after slapping a child across the face during an out–of–control dance show in China. 
Over in California, a bot went berserk at a restaurant, with desperate staff filmed trying to drag it away from customers. 
Meanwhile, a humanoid was even detained by police in China after terrifying an elderly woman. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 7.7%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Shivali Best: 4.5%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic15.0%This article: 3.2%Shivali Best: 2.6%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.2%This article: 1.8%Shivali Best: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias1.8%This article: 6.2%Shivali Best: 5.5%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias6.2%This article: 14.8%Shivali Best: 6.8%Daily Mail: 9.1%Framing Effect14.8%This article: 3.5%Shivali Best: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion3.5%This article: 1.3%Shivali Best: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Shivali Best: 2.2%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias10.1%This article: 8.9%Shivali Best: 3.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias8.9%This article: 39.4%Shivali Best: 11.7%Daily Mail: 12.8%Negativity Bias39.4%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.4%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Shivali Best: 2.1%Daily Mail: 4.5%Halo Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Shivali Best: 2.5%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 2.7%Shivali Best: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%Shivali Best: 12.9%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 3.1%Shivali Best: 3.8%Daily Mail: 1.2%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 3.6%Shivali Best: 2.6%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 1.5%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.9%Shivali Best: 8.6%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization8.9%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.1%Shivali Best: 1.4%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 27.4%Shivali Best: 8.3%Daily Mail: 7.5%Appeal to Emotion27.4%This article: 1.5%Shivali Best: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question1.5%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 7.4%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 30.7%Shivali Best: 7.0%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal30.7%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.2%Shivali Best: 3.0%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote25.2%This article: 2.7%Shivali Best: 1.6%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.7%This article: 20.9%Shivali Best: 6.4%Daily Mail: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice20.9%This article: 3.2%Shivali Best: 4.6%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination3.2%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shivali Best: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Shivali Best: 1.3%Daily Mail: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

742 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers14%attributed speech640writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageElon Musk • 22 words • 100.0% coverageElon Musk • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageEngineAI • 28 words • 0.0% coverageEngineAI • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSouth China Morning Post • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elon Musk

96%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words23% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+69.9 ptsWriter: 25.8%Elon Musk: 95.7%95.7%Biased Writer Voice-24.2 ptsWriter: 24.2%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%

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.