Speaker summary
⁠45%1 analyzed article/video65.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Marcus Thuram results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 83.7% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 212 faulty-reasoning hits from 65.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 36.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (12,886 of 28,364 speakers). This Marcus Thuram is worse (more manipulative) than 54.60% of the peer group.
Marcus Thuram
Speaker details
Total words: 65.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

55% percentile
025507510054.6% percentile
36.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos65.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 83.7%83.7%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 32.6%32.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 33.7%33.7%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 16.3%16.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 33.7%33.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 16.3%16.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 83.7%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 33.7%, sitewide 19.2%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 33.7%, sitewide 1.1%Indoctrination: Speaker 32.6%, sitewide 0.0%False Dilemma: Speaker 16.3%, sitewide 1.5%In-Group Bias: Speaker 16.3%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos