Adam Kinzinger's Post on Lindsey Graham's Passing Is As Despicable As You'd Expect ⁠82%

By Amy Curtis⁠89%

7/14/2026, 8:30:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Straw Man, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 32.2% saturation with 67 hits. Analysis detected 444 faulty-reasoning hits from 208 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (4,054 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.50% of the article peer group.

When Senator Lindsey Graham died on Sunday morning, the remembrances from his colleagues on Capitol Hill and in D.C. media circles poured in. 
Many of them were very touching, remembering a Senator who was a kind, funny, hardworking man. 
But there are plenty of Leftist ghouls cheering the death, as those monsters always do. 
One of them is Adam Kinzinger, who used Graham's death to let his terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome come to the surface. 
First of all, way to spell his name wrong. 
Was Kinzinger, who — as you can see — supports Ukraine, aware that Graham had just returned from a trip to Ukraine when he died? 
Or that Graham supported Ukraine? 
Apparently, that doesn't matter to Kinzinger, who hates President Trump more than he likes even pretending to be a decent human being. 
Clearly, he does not. 
Kinzinger thinks opposing President Trump gives him the moral high ground. 
It does not. 
Yes, it is. 
Few people exercise that option, alas. 
You can also tell how decent a person is by how they react to someone's death. 
Yeah, what happened to 'Slava Ukraini,' Adam? 
He is incapable of that last point. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 28.4%Amy Curtis: 8.6%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias28.4%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Amy Curtis: 10.8%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Amy Curtis: 2.8%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 13.5%Amy Curtis: 15.5%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error13.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.7%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Amy Curtis: 6.0%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.2%This article: 7.7%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.2%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 32.2%Amy Curtis: 8.3%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem32.2%This article: 17.3%Amy Curtis: 4.3%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man17.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.6%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma10.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.9%Amy Curtis: 16.6%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization14.9%This article: 7.7%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring7.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 9.9%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 9.6%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question9.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.5%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.7%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.3%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.4%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.4%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 24.5%Amy Curtis: 24.5%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice24.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 8.1%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Amy Curtis: 22.0%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 6.1%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

208 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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