Speaker summary
⁠58%4 analyzed articles/videos74 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Senate Democrats results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 52.8% saturation with 44.883 hits. Analysis detected 205.789 faulty-reasoning hits from 74 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 32.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (13,941 of 28,364 speakers). This Senate Democrats is worse (more manipulative) than 50.90% of the peer group.
Senate Democrats
Speaker details
Total words: 74
Article count: 4
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

51% percentile
025507510050.9% percentile
32.8% BS Score4 analyzed videos74 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 52.8%52.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 38.5%38.5%Politically Left Leaning …Sitewide 2.0%Speaker 27.1%27.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 27.7%27.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 39.2%39.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 27.1%27.1%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 16.9%16.9%

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 52.8%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 39.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 38.5%, sitewide 11.1%In-Group Bias: Speaker 27.7%, sitewide 6.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 27.1%, sitewide 8.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Speaker 27.1%, sitewide 2.0%Burden of Proof: Speaker 16.9%, sitewide 0.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos