NTD100%

World's GREATEST Event Football's Massive Success Revealed! 100%

7/20/2026, 1:13:39 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Halo Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 57% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 781 faulty-reasoning hits from 158 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 100% (98 of 20,450 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 99.50% of the video peer group.

There has never been anything like it. 
Probably in terms of an event, let alone soccer or football, whatever you want to call it. 
But I thought it was incredible. 
It was four times greater than any FIFA ever held. 
And it's probably about five times, actually, they're telling me today. 
So, we're very proud of our country. 
We're very proud of the job that was done by everybody. 
Uh we congratulate Gianni Infantino and all of his staff and the incredible job they did. 
But this was one of the greatest events of any kind ever held. 
So, we're really happy that it it did so well. 
well. And all over the world, people have uh come and they've loved our country. 
You know, shown off our country in a different light. 
And uh it's a great thing. It was a great event. 
And I'm glad you all enjoyed it. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.7%NTD: 15.5%Confirmation Bias29.7%This article: 4.4%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias4.4%This article: 19.0%NTD: 12.1%Availability Heuristic19.0%This article: 10.8%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 46.2%NTD: 9.0%Overconfidence Bias46.2%This article: 21.5%NTD: 22.7%Framing Effect21.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%NTD: 9.8%Optimism Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 16.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%NTD: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 35.4%NTD: 8.1%In-Group Bias35.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 43.0%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect43.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.2%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias15.2%This article: 15.2%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect15.2%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%NTD: 1.6%Ad Hominem10.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.3%NTD: 14.1%Appeal to Authority13.3%This article: 10.8%NTD: 5.4%False Dilemma10.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning7.0%This article: 28.5%NTD: 17.1%Hasty Generalization28.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 18.4%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon18.4%This article: 57.0%NTD: 21.8%Appeal to Emotion57.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.0%NTD: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.4%NTD: 4.4%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.0%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division7.0%This article: 17.7%NTD: 6.3%Anecdotal17.7%This article: 4.4%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman4.4%This article: 36.1%NTD: 4.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)36.1%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: 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%

158 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker10%attributed speech142writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageGianni Infantino • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Gianni Infantino

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% 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.