Topic summary

⁠97%1 analyzed article/video560 analyzed words

BS Summary: These International Humanitarian Law results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 38.2% saturation with 641 hits. Analysis detected 3,863 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,680 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 6.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (2,501 of 14,855 topics). This International Humanitarian Law is worse (more manipulative) than 83.20% of the peer group.

International Humanitarian Law

Topic ranking list

Percentile	Topic	BS Score
⁠0%	Pittsburgh Pirates	1%
⁠0%	Holocaust	1%
⁠0%	Privacy Policy	1%
⁠0%	Alameda County	1%
⁠0%	Terms Of Use	1%
⁠84%	International Humanitarian Law (selected)	7%
⁠100%	Radio Roundup / Week In Review	60%
⁠100%	E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes	60%
⁠100%	E Bikes Rad Power Bikes	60%
⁠100%	The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell	69%
⁠100%	The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell	69%

Topic details

Total words: 1,680

Article count: 1

Authors

David Bernstein

Loading chart...

Attribute Prevalence (Top 48)

International Humanitarian Law attribute prevalence percentages (biases/fallacies), sorted highest to lowest.

Loading chart...

International Humanitarian Law vs sitewide

International Humanitarian Law attribute percentages, with an overlaid sitewide baseline for those same attributes.

Analyzed articles and videos

Sort by

How Did Support for International Humanitarian Law and Norms Morph into Support for Hamas and its Goals?⁠^87%

Reason.com⁠^41%By David Bernstein⁠^99%7/22/2026, 12:02:03 PM