NTD⁠100%

Trump: Canada Fires Poisoning Air ⁠95%

7/20/2026, 3:00:01 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Burden of Proof, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 32.6% saturation with 42 hits. Analysis detected 372 faulty-reasoning hits from 129 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 92.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,015 of 20,360 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 95.00% of the video peer group.

AndĀ thenĀ howĀ didĀ thatĀ go?Ā 
>>Ā Well,Ā itĀ wentĀ good,Ā butĀ IĀ IĀ toldĀ them,Ā IĀ 
mean,Ā youĀ gotĀ toĀ stopĀ theseĀ firesĀ fromĀ 
comingĀ inĀ and,Ā youĀ know,Ā poisoningĀ ourĀ air.Ā OurĀ airĀ hasĀ beenĀ poisoned.Ā 
IĀ haveĀ aĀ goodĀ relationshipĀ withĀ MarkĀ 
Carney,Ā butĀ 
youĀ know,Ā weĀ gotĀ toĀ stopĀ theĀ firesĀ upĀ 
there.Ā IfĀ weĀ canĀ helpĀ them,Ā we'llĀ helpĀ 
them.Ā 
ButĀ maybeĀ theyĀ shouldĀ payĀ usĀ someĀ damagesĀ orĀ something,Ā orĀ weĀ shouldĀ doĀ 
someĀ tariffs.Ā 
ButĀ itĀ wasĀ terrible.Ā IĀ mean,Ā youĀ hadĀ businessesĀ closing.Ā 
InĀ particular,Ā Michigan,Ā 
ifĀ youĀ lookĀ atĀ theĀ Detroit,Ā theĀ Detroit,Ā 
MichiganĀ area,Ā theyĀ closedĀ everything.Ā 
TheyĀ didn'tĀ closeĀ carĀ plantsĀ andĀ aĀ lotĀ ofĀ otherĀ things.Ā So,Ā 
I'veĀ neverĀ rememberedĀ thisĀ happening.Ā 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.3%NTD: 15.5%Confirmation Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%NTD: 12.1%Availability Heuristic16.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%NTD: 9.0%Overconfidence Bias3.9%This article: 17.1%NTD: 22.7%Framing Effect17.1%This article: 10.9%NTD: 1.8%Loss Aversion10.9%This article: 1.6%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.7%NTD: 9.8%Optimism Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.0%NTD: 16.9%Negativity Bias31.0%This article: 5.4%NTD: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 8.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias3.9%This article: 6.2%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect6.2%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: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.4%NTD: 14.1%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 10.9%NTD: 5.4%False Dilemma10.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.6%NTD: 17.1%Hasty Generalization11.6%This article: 1.6%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring1.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 32.6%NTD: 21.8%Appeal to Emotion32.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.1%NTD: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 24.0%NTD: 4.4%Burden of Proof24.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.9%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division3.9%This article: 26.4%NTD: 6.3%Anecdotal26.4%This article: 9.3%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman9.3%This article: 23.3%NTD: 4.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.9%NTD: 0.4%Personal Incredulity3.9%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: 4.8%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: 4.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

129 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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