Thousands of young protesters camp on streets in India's Cockroach movement ⁠97%

7/23/2026, 12:25:34 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 58.5% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 646 faulty-reasoning hits from 135 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (640 of 20,876 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 96.90% of the video peer group.

वंदे मातरम 
धर्मेंद्र प्रधान इस्तीफा दो इस्तीफा दो इस्तीफा दो 
हम एजुकेशन के लिए आए हैं हम प्रोटेस्ट के लिए आए पीसफुल प्रोटेस्ट के लिए आए 
हैं और हम यहां रहेंगे जब तक वो रिजाइन नहीं कर देते 
मोदी तेरी तानाशाही नहीं चलेगी नहीं चलेगी 
आई थिंक ही नीड्स टू आर्टिक्यूुलेट इट्स हिस थॉट्स अ लिटिल मोर एंड फोकस ऑन व्हाट 
द डिमांड एक्चुअली इज रादर देन प्रोवाइडिंग द सलूशन व्हिच इज कन्वीनिएंट 
फॉर हिम ही शुड वर्क टुवर्ड्स द सलूशन व्हिच इज कन्वीनिएंट फॉर द नेशन एंड सेट 
एन एग्जांपल जय 
भारत [चीखने की आवाज़] माता की जय [हौसला बढ़ाने की आवाज़] 
दिल्ली पुलिस हायहा 
जय भीम जय भीम जय 
वो आए तो सही कितना कुछ हो गया अभी नहीं आ रहे 
जिंदाबाद 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.9%Associated Press: 1.7%Confirmation Bias5.9%This article: 5.9%Associated Press: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.9%This article: 8.1%Associated Press: 2.8%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.9%Associated Press: 0.3%Hindsight Bias8.9%This article: 23.7%Associated Press: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias23.7%This article: 28.9%Associated Press: 4.7%Framing Effect28.9%This article: 8.9%Associated Press: 0.6%Loss Aversion8.9%This article: 11.9%Associated Press: 0.5%Status Quo Bias11.9%This article: 8.9%Associated Press: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect8.9%This article: 20.7%Associated Press: 2.4%Optimism Bias20.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.4%Associated Press: 6.6%Negativity Bias27.4%This article: 11.9%Associated Press: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias11.9%This article: 11.9%Associated Press: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error11.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 19.3%Associated Press: 0.9%In-Group Bias19.3%This article: 2.2%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Associated Press: 1.0%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 3.7%Associated Press: 0.1%Primacy Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Associated Press: 0.3%Ad Hominem7.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.7%Associated Press: 3.5%Appeal to Authority23.7%This article: 20.7%Associated Press: 0.9%False Dilemma20.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 8.9%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning8.9%This article: 8.1%Associated Press: 2.3%Hasty Generalization8.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 25.2%Associated Press: 0.4%Bandwagon25.2%This article: 58.5%Associated Press: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion58.5%This article: 29.6%Associated Press: 0.4%Begging the Question29.6%This article: 8.9%Associated Press: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.7%Associated Press: 0.5%Burden of Proof20.7%This article: 11.9%Associated Press: 0.2%Appeal to Nature11.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.0%Associated Press: 0.9%Anecdotal23.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.8%Associated Press: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

135 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.