Speaker summary
⁠33%1 analyzed article/video147 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Human Rights Tribunal results contain 1 faulty reasoning type, including Appeal to Authority, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 20.4% saturation with 30 hits. Analysis detected 30 faulty-reasoning hits from 147 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 20.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠33% (19,058 of 28,364 speakers). This Human Rights Tribunal is better (less manipulative) than 67.20% of the peer group.
Human Rights Tribunal
Speaker details
Total words: 147
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

33% percentile
025507510032.8% percentile
20.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos147 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–25%
0.0%5%10%15%20%25%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 20.4%20.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%5%5%10%10%15%15%20%20%25%25%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 20.4%, sitewide 11.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos