Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video125 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Constitutional Debate results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Primacy Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.4% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 348 faulty-reasoning hits from 500 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 8.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠90% (1,649 of 16,562 topics). This Constitutional Debate is worse (more manipulative) than 90.00% of the peer group.
Constitutional Debate
Topic details
Total words: 500
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

90% percentile
025507510090.0% percentile
8.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles500 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 14.4%14.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 27.4%27.4%Primacy EffectSitewide 0.9%Topic 8.0%8.0%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 4.6%4.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 5.4%5.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 3.0%3.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 5.4%5.4%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 1.4%1.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Negativity Bias: Topic 27.4%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Topic 14.4%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 8.1%Primacy Effect: Topic 8.0%, sitewide 0.9%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 5.3%Indoctrination: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 0.0%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 1.9%Negativity BiasSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos