Speaker summary
⁠54%2 analyzed articles/videos121.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These David Gamage results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 57.1% saturation with 104 hits. Analysis detected 315.25 faulty-reasoning hits from 121.333 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 19.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠32% (19,192 of 28,069 speakers). This David Gamage is better (less manipulative) than 68.40% of the peer group.
David Gamage
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 121.333
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

32% percentile
025507510031.6% percentile
19.8% BS Score2 analyzed videos121.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 57.1%57.1%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 21.4%21.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 14.3%14.3%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 14.3%14.3%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 14.3%14.3%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 14.3%14.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 14.3%14.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 14.3%14.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 14.3%14.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 57.1%, sitewide 11.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 21.4%, sitewide 0.0%Negativity Bias: Speaker 14.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 14.3%, sitewide 15.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 14.3%, sitewide 0.8%Anecdotal: Speaker 14.3%, sitewide 5.2%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 14.3%, sitewide 9.1%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 14.3%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Speaker 14.3%, sitewide 1.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos