Speaker summary
⁠71%1 analyzed article/video294 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Paul Gosar results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization, and Bandwagon, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 58% saturation with 193 hits. Analysis detected 340.182 faulty-reasoning hits from 294 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 16% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (21,447 of 28,364 speakers). This Paul Gosar is better (less manipulative) than 75.60% of the peer group.
Paul Gosar
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 294
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

24% percentile
025507510024.4% percentile
16.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos294 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 58.0%58.0%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Speaker 9.4%9.4%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 6.9%6.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 2.0%2.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 20.0%20.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 11.4%11.4%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 4.5%4.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Negativity Bias: Speaker 58.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 20.0%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 11.4%, sitewide 8.1%Bandwagon: Speaker 9.4%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Speaker 6.9%, sitewide 1.5%In-Group Bias: Speaker 2.0%, sitewide 6.9%Ad Hominem: Speaker 4.5%, sitewide 2.2%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos