NTD100%

Please Take Concrete Action Against Evil CCP Regime! 99%

7/24/2026, 12:30:13 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 43.6% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 491 faulty-reasoning hits from 149 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 99.8% and a BS Rank of 99% (266 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 98.80% of the video peer group.

And I'm going to do whatever I can, 
uh, to help you guys so we can be the 
voice of innocent people out there who 
don't have a voice. And again, we are 
tired of hearing condemnation. We need 
to take concrete action against the evil 
regime of CCP. 
Keep inspiring people because I see 
we have thousands of people here and 
more than half of it is the young 
generation. It is so important because 
every Falun Dafa grows up as an 
activist. Every Falun Dafa grows up, uh, 
born as an activist. So, for that 
reason, keep inspiring, please. Keep 
being the voice of voiceless people. I 
hope that we will not have to meet again 
last year, uh, next year because I hope 
that this persecution and this, uh, 
uh, 
this pain will end as soon as possible. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%NTD: 15.7%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%NTD: 12.2%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 10.1%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic10.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%NTD: 9.3%Overconfidence Bias10.1%This article: 39.6%NTD: 22.7%Framing Effect39.6%This article: 4.7%NTD: 1.9%Loss Aversion4.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 26.2%NTD: 9.9%Optimism Bias26.2%This article: 11.4%NTD: 2.8%Pessimism Bias11.4%This article: 23.5%NTD: 17.1%Negativity Bias23.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%NTD: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error4.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%NTD: 8.2%In-Group Bias11.4%This article: 2.0%NTD: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.0%This article: 14.8%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect14.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias5.4%This article: 8.7%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 14.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.1%NTD: 5.5%False Dilemma10.1%This article: 5.4%NTD: 3.4%Slippery Slope5.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.4%NTD: 17.3%Hasty Generalization9.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 12.1%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon12.1%This article: 43.6%NTD: 22.3%Appeal to Emotion43.6%This article: 17.4%NTD: 6.1%Begging the Question17.4%This article: 10.7%NTD: 5.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.4%NTD: 4.4%Burden of Proof9.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.4%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division5.4%This article: 10.1%NTD: 6.4%Anecdotal10.1%This article: 4.7%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman4.7%This article: 6.0%NTD: 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

149 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech125writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageorganization • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageorganization • 7 words • 0.0% coverageorganization • 7 words • 0.0% coverageorganization • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

organization

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.