NTD100%

Tren de Aragua is the Roughest People in the World! 100%

7/27/2026, 7:00:26 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 58.2% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,144 faulty-reasoning hits from 249 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 100% (159 of 25,563 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 99.40% of the video peer group.

They cut off people's fingers so they don't make a phone call. 
And we will continue to remove dangerous criminals, drug dealers, human traffickers, and child predators from our country. 
And we will always stand with the heroes of ICE and Border Patrol. 
They are heroes. 
They are you the abuse that I 
If you saw some of the people they have to deal with, if you saw the toughness and the craziness and the boy, oh boy, the roughest people really in the world. 
They were let into our country by Biden and the group. 
But probably I don't even know that know if he knew. 
I don't even know that he knew people are coming in. 
I don't think they told him. 
They were coming into our country and they are the roughest people in the world. 
Remember they used to say, "Oh, foreign people don't commit crime." 
They make our criminals look like babies. 
It's the only thing good about them, they make our people look like absolute babies. 
But they are you don't get rougher. 
Trend Agua, the roughest in the world. 
They cut off people's fingers so they don't make a phone call. You're going to make a phone call? I'd like to call the police. 
police. Boom, their fingers are gone. 
These are the roughest and worst people in the world. 
We can never let that happen again. 
Can never let it happen. 
Confirmation Bias
20.5%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
36.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
21.7%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
4.4%
Framing Effect
18.1%
Loss Aversion
2.8%
Status Quo Bias
2.8%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
15.7%
Negativity Bias
56.6%
Self-Serving Bias
4.4%
Fundamental Attribution Error
6.8%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
8%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
12.4%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
24.9%
Primacy Effect
8.4%
Blind-Spot Bias
8.8%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
4.4%
Appeal to Authority
9.6%
False Dilemma
6%
Slippery Slope
12.9%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
35.7%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
58.2%
Begging the Question
7.6%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
4.4%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
31.3%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
2.8%
Anecdotal
20.1%
No True Scotsman
7.2%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
5.6%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

249 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.