NTD100%

US Weighs Visa Sanctions on China Over Deportees 100%

5/8/2026, 12:03:09 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 71.2% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 845 faulty-reasoning hits from 132 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 100% (149 of 20,248 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 99.30% of the video peer group.

The Trump administration is preparing visa sanctions on China over Beijing's slow acceptance of deported nationals. 
The move comes amid claims that China has reduced cooperation on taking back its citizens in recent months. 
The official says China previously accepted around 3,000 deportees on charter and commercial flights earlier in 2025, but that number has since declined. 
ICE says some of those deported included a man convicted of murder and another convicted of rape. 
Washington says the lack of cooperation violates international obligations. 
It warns it could respond by tightening visa rules. 
Officials also say inaction could affect future travel for law-abiding Chinese citizens. 
The warning comes just ahead of President Trump's scheduled meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on May 14th and 15th. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.6%NTD: 15.3%Confirmation Bias13.6%This article: 17.4%NTD: 3.8%Anchoring Bias17.4%This article: 12.9%NTD: 12.1%Availability Heuristic12.9%This article: 12.9%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic12.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 8.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 40.2%NTD: 22.6%Framing Effect40.2%This article: 15.9%NTD: 1.8%Loss Aversion15.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 9.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 71.2%NTD: 16.9%Negativity Bias71.2%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%NTD: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error6.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 22.0%NTD: 8.0%In-Group Bias22.0%This article: 27.3%NTD: 4.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias27.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 6.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 31.1%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias31.1%This article: 15.2%NTD: 2.2%Primacy Effect15.2%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: 51.5%NTD: 14.2%Appeal to Authority51.5%This article: 12.1%NTD: 5.3%False Dilemma12.1%This article: 15.9%NTD: 3.1%Slippery Slope15.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.7%NTD: 16.8%Hasty Generalization19.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 48.5%NTD: 21.6%Appeal to Emotion48.5%This article: 6.8%NTD: 5.8%Begging the Question6.8%This article: 32.6%NTD: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)32.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.9%NTD: 6.3%Anecdotal12.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 47.0%NTD: 2.1%Unattributed Quote47.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 66.7%NTD: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice66.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 40.2%NTD: 4.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias40.2%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

132 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech97writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageICE • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWashington • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWashington • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

ICE

100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words49% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+36.1 ptsWriter: 63.9%ICE: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-54.6 ptsWriter: 54.6%ICE: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -45.4 ptsWriter: 45.4%ICE: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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