Speaker summary
⁠83%1 analyzed article/video112 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Paul Dacre results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Horn Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 68.5% saturation with 115 hits. Analysis detected 423.417 faulty-reasoning hits from 112 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 47.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠63% (10,075 of 27,215 speakers). This Paul Dacre is worse (more manipulative) than 63.00% of the peer group.
Paul Dacre
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 112
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

63% percentile
025507510063.0% percentile
47.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos112 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 63.1%63.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 68.5%68.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 68.5%68.5%Horn EffectSitewide 1.0%Speaker 31.6%31.6%Sunk Cost EffectSitewide 0.3%Speaker 27.7%27.7%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 27.7%27.7%

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 Emotion: Speaker 68.5%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 68.5%, sitewide 19.2%Ad Hominem: Speaker 63.1%, sitewide 2.2%Horn Effect: Speaker 31.6%, sitewide 1.0%Begging the Question: Speaker 27.7%, sitewide 1.7%Sunk Cost Effect: Speaker 27.7%, sitewide 0.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos