NTD100%

Trump Promotes White House UFC Event 97%

5/20/2026, 7:15:36 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 88.3% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 694 faulty-reasoning hits from 128 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 94.8% and a BS Rank of 97% (734 of 21,569 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 96.60% of the video peer group.

UFC, that's going to be something UFC event on the South Lawn right there. 
We're going to build an arena. 
It's going to hold probably, I would say, 4,000 5,000. 
The great Dana White is putting it on. 
You know, we'll get it up to the max. 
And behind you in the park, the beautiful park, beautiful open piece of land, we're going to have anywhere from 75,000 to 100,000 people, all free of charge. 
We're building eight giant screens back there. 
So, we have a small arena here that we're building, never happened before. 
And in the back, we're going to have close to 100,000 people watching the fight. 
They're going to be all championship fights. 
It's going to be great. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%NTD: 15.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias7.8%This article: 33.6%NTD: 12.2%Availability Heuristic33.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 78.9%NTD: 9.1%Overconfidence Bias78.9%This article: 51.6%NTD: 22.7%Framing Effect51.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.9%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: 68.8%NTD: 9.8%Optimism Bias68.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 17.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%NTD: 4.6%Self-Serving Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%NTD: 8.2%In-Group Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect11.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.3%NTD: 14.0%Appeal to Authority6.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.3%NTD: 17.2%Hasty Generalization13.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 33.6%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon33.6%This article: 65.6%NTD: 22.2%Appeal to Emotion65.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 6.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.4%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: 0.0%NTD: 6.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.6%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: 0.0%NTD: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 88.3%NTD: 5.0%Biased Writer Voice88.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%NTD: 4.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias4.7%This article: 60.9%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…60.9%

128 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.