Speaker summary
⁠63%1 analyzed article/video20 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dave Foreman results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and In-Group Bias, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 19 hits. Analysis detected 40 faulty-reasoning hits from 20 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 42.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (11,078 of 27,409 speakers). This Dave Foreman is worse (more manipulative) than 59.60% of the peer group.
Dave Foreman
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠60%Dave Foreman (selected)43%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 20
Article count: 1
Authors

Analyzed articles and videos