From AP's archives: Remembering boxing icon Muhammad Ali 10 years after his death ⁠85%

5/31/2026, 11:40:37 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 53.6% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 484 faulty-reasoning hits from 138 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (3,095 of 20,244 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 84.70% of the video peer group.

I said last night I had a dream. 
When I got to Africa, I had one hell of a rumble. 
I had to beat Tarzan's behind first for claiming to be the king of the jungle. 
For this fight, I've wrestled with alligators. 
I've tussled with a whale. 
I don't handcuff lightning and put thunder in jail. 
You know I'm bad. 
I have murdered a rock. 
I injured a stone and a hospitalized a brick. 
I'm so bad I make medicine sick. 
I'm so fast, man, I can run through a [music] hurricane and don't get wet. 
When George Foreman meets me, he'll pay his debt. 
I can drown in a drink of water and kill a dead tree. 
Wait till you see Muhammad Ali. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 28.3%Associated Press: 2.9%Availability Heuristic28.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.5%Associated Press: 0.3%Hindsight Bias6.5%This article: 44.9%Associated Press: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias44.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 4.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Associated Press: 2.6%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.7%Associated Press: 7.0%Negativity Bias21.7%This article: 13.8%Associated Press: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Associated Press: 0.9%In-Group Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%Associated Press: 1.8%Halo Effect16.7%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: 13.8%Associated Press: 1.1%Recency Bias13.8%This article: 13.8%Associated Press: 0.2%Primacy Effect13.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Associated Press: 0.3%Ad Hominem11.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.8%Associated Press: 3.8%Appeal to Authority13.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.5%Associated Press: 0.4%Slippery Slope6.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.9%Associated Press: 0.3%Bandwagon2.9%This article: 37.7%Associated Press: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion37.7%This article: 8.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Begging the Question8.0%This article: 11.6%Associated Press: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.5%Associated Press: 0.6%Burden of Proof6.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 53.6%Associated Press: 1.0%Anecdotal53.6%This article: 11.6%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman11.6%This article: 9.4%Associated Press: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.4%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: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

138 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.5%attributed speech129writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Foreman • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

George Foreman

100%flagged-word coverage
9 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…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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