we became sh*tty voice actors
Credibility score: 56/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "we became sh*tty voice actors" and rated it 56/100 for credibility (a BS score of 44/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-08-27. Its weakest claim — "Lists absurd life stages ending in 'resurrect like the holy s push' — escalating absurdity for comedy" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as emotional button. 35 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 35 claims analyzed: 4 scored under 40, 16 between 40 and 69, and 15 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of the game and stakes. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
They're setting the stage for a competition, teasing the game and the 'big greasy DoorDash' prize. It's all about building anticipation.
Why this score: This whole intro is a classic setup, not a claim. They're laying out the premise of their 'shitty voice actor' competition, the rules (8 clips, 1 point each), and the prize. It's pure scene-setting and expectation management, getting you ready for the main event. No specific claims to fact-check, just the framing of a fun challenge.
Original quote: “Roberta Robert
choice or voicer. Yep. You already seen
it 7,000 times, but basically you become
a voice actor and you dub over stuff,
whatever. Me and my brother Skizy
decided to play it together. But we
would be competing to see who had the
funniest and dumbest dubs for each clip.
There are eight…”
The speaker reacts to a name change, setting up a comedic premise. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:30
This is just a setup for a joke, not a claim to be fact-checked.
Why this score: The interaction is clearly comedic, playing on the absurdity of changing one's name to 'Mclovin'. It's a conversational opener, not a factual assertion.
Original quote: “WAIT, you you changed your name to
Mclovin?”
A question is posed about meeting someone named Muhammad, likely for comedic effect. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:42
Another comedic setup, using a common name for a punchline.
Why this score: This is part of the ongoing comedic exchange, using a common name like 'Muhammad' in contrast to the unusual 'Mclovin' to highlight the absurdity. It's a rhetorical question within a humorous context.
Original quote: “Fogle, have you ever actually met anyone
named Muhammad?”
A speaker states they received a 36%, implying a poor performance. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:49
A self-deprecating comment about a score, likely related to their voice acting attempts.
Why this score: This is a personal admission of a low score, fitting the video's theme of being 'shitty voice actors'. It's a subjective statement about their own performance, not a claim about external facts.
Original quote: “Bro, I got a 36%.”
The speaker ridicules the name 'Mclovin' and contrasts it with 'Mohammed'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:01
Uses 'stupid name' and 'Irish R&B singer' to mock the choice, then contrasts with a common name for comedic effect.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language like 'stupid name' and a stereotypical comparison ('Irish R&B singer') to frame 'Mclovin' as an absurd choice. The contrast with 'Mohammed' further emphasizes the perceived ridiculousness, steering the listener's reaction through humor and mild derision.
Original quote: “Mcloven? What kind of a stupid name is
that fog? Were you trying to be an Irish
R&B singer? Oh, then you pick any name
you want when you get down there. And
you landed on Mcloven. Yeah, I do that.
Mohammed.”
The speaker mocks the name 'Big Chungus' with loaded language and a demeaning comparison. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:34
Uses 'stupid name' and 'big fat bunny' to ridicule the name choice, clearly aiming for a laugh at the expense of the name.
Why this score: Similar to the 'Mclovin' example, the speaker employs loaded language ('stupid name') and a dismissive, slightly insulting comparison ('big fat bunny') to frame 'Big Chungus' as an inherently silly and undesirable name. This is a clear rhetorical choice to elicit a specific, negative reaction from the audience for comedic purposes.
Original quote: “Big Chungus? What kind of a stupid name
is that, Fogle? What are you trying to
be a big fat bunny?”
The speakers use repetition and expletives to emphasize the 'realness' of their situation. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 2:30
They're using strong, repeated language to create a sense of urgency and impact, even though we don't know what 'it' is yet. It's all about building hype.
Why this score: This is a classic 'emotional button' move. By repeating 'IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW' and 'IT'S REAL' with expletives, they're trying to get a visceral reaction from the audience before any actual information is shared. It primes the viewer to feel the intensity of their experience, whatever it may be. A neutral framing would simply state what's happening without the dramatic build-up.
Original quote: “>> IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. >> IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. >> [ __ ] >> IT'S [ __ ] REAL. And I made a wish. It's [ __ ] horrible. >> It's real and it's real.”
One speaker reveals a '35%' score, implying poor performance in voice acting. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:41
They drop a specific, low percentage without explaining the context or what it measures, then immediately follow with self-deprecating humor.
Why this score: This is 'loaded language' combined with 'missing context.' The '35%' is presented as a definitive, bad score, and the immediate follow-up 'We are some ass' reinforces that negative interpretation. We don't know what this percentage represents (a test? a rating? a personal assessment?), what the scale is, or what a 'good' score would be. A neutral framing would explain the source and meaning of the percentage before drawing conclusions.
Original quote: “>> Yes. All right. All right. Before we do the the dubs, what percent did you get? I'm gonna screen share it cuz I did a lot of [ __ ] around and I [laughter] I got 35, bro. >> We are some ass.”
The speaker claims a wish for 'Nikki to love me' came true after breaking a piece of wood. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 3:40
This is clearly a comedic, anecdotal story, not meant to be taken as a factual claim about magic wishes. It's all for the bit.
Why this score: This segment is pure 'just vibes' and comedic storytelling. The speaker isn't making a serious, fact-checkable claim about the efficacy of wishes or wood-breaking rituals. It's an exaggerated, humorous anecdote to set up a comedic scenario, likely related to their voice acting attempts. There's no 'framing' in a manipulative sense here; it's just part of the show. A neutral framing would be to simply acknowledge it as a fictional or exaggerated story.
Original quote: “>> I made a wish. I broke this piece of wood. At first, [laughter] I didn't think it was real. Okay, this is freaking real. I made a wish. I I didn't think it would work. I wish that Nikki would love me, but it worked. >> Yes, [ __ ] Yes, it's real. It's [ __ ] real, Ian. I made a wish and it's…”
The speaker prefaces their voice acting attempt by saying they were 'really into doing a [bad] voice,' setting expectations. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:15
They're transparently setting expectations for their performance, which is actually a pretty straightforward and honest framing.
Why this score: This is an example of 'no frame' or very clean framing. The speaker is openly admitting their intention to use a 'bad voice,' which manages audience expectations and provides context for what's about to be heard. They're not trying to mislead or manipulate; they're being upfront about their approach. This is what transparent communication looks like – stating intentions clearly. A neutral framing would be exactly this: a direct statement of intent.
Original quote: “>> I'm going to preface mine by saying I was I was really into doing a [ __ ] voice. So, [laughter] >> it's going to be really [ __ ] awkward cuz yours is a lot more serious. I'm I'm excited for this.”
The speaker claims Nigi is acting weird and asks what's happening, setting up a mysterious scenario. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:30
Just setting the scene for a bit of a dramatic reveal — no real claims yet, just building the story.
Why this score: This whole exchange is just conversational setup. They're trying to figure out what's going on with 'Nigi' and 'Bear,' creating a sense of anticipation. It's not a claim to be fact-checked, but rather a narrative device to engage the audience.
Original quote: “>> Bear, what the [ __ ] >> So, you know how Nigi all of a sudden started. [laughter] >> Is she okay? >> Yes. Yes. >> What's happening? What the [ __ ] is happening? >> Just stay here. Is Nigi okay? [laughter] Or come over. Mayor, Mayor, tell me what the [ __ ] is happening right now. >> Okay.…”
The speaker claims they made a wish for Nigi to love them, and it worked, presenting a fantastical scenario as real. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:58
Okay, so this is clearly a bit of a skit or role-play — they're leaning into the absurdity of 'making a wish' and it working. It's for laughs.
Why this score: The speaker is clearly engaging in a fictional narrative, claiming a wish made Nigi love them. This isn't meant to be taken as a factual statement but rather as part of a comedic or storytelling segment. It's a playful, imaginative claim that sets a lighthearted tone for the interaction.
Original quote: “This real. >> What? [laughter] I I made a wish. I didn't think it would work. I I wish that Nigi would love me and it worked.”
The speaker insists the wish is 'real' and then introduces the rule of 'only one wish,' adding to the playful narrative. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 5:18
They're doubling down on the 'this is real' bit, which is funny because it's so obviously not. Then they add a classic fantasy trope: 'one wish only.'
Why this score: This continues the comedic, fictional narrative. The insistence that 'this is real' despite the fantastical nature of the claim (a wish working) is part of the humor. The introduction of the 'one wish' rule further solidifies that they are playing within a made-up scenario, not making a serious factual assertion.
Original quote: “Is this a joke to you? [laughter] >> This is real. >> You only get one wish.”
The speaker humorously suggests Ian's 'one wish' should be 'for Israel,' injecting a random, unexpected element for comedic effect. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 5:23
That's a classic comedic non-sequitur — totally out of left field, just to get a laugh. It's not a claim, it's a punchline.
Why this score: This is a clear example of comedic interjection. The sudden, unrelated mention of 'Israel' in the context of a 'one wish' scenario is intended for humor and shock value, not as a factual statement or a serious political comment. It's a moment of lighthearted absurdity.
Original quote: “One wish. You only get one wish, Ian. For Israel. [laughter] Israel.”
The speaker introduces 'Robert Loia' and implies the audience is about to see a well-known clip, creating anticipation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:00
They're setting up a reference to a specific pop culture moment, assuming some audience familiarity. It's a direct lead-in to a new segment.
Why this score: This is a straightforward introduction to a new segment or reference. The speaker is signaling to the audience that they are about to play or reference a specific, presumably well-known, clip involving 'Robert Loia.' This is a common way to transition in content and build anticipation, not a claim that requires fact-checking.
Original quote: “Robert Loia. >> Robertia. If you don't know this clip, you're about to find out.”
Self-deprecating comparison — framing voice acting as torture — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:30
Sets up the bit with a relatable nightmare scenario — classic comedic exaggeration
Why this score: They're using a familiar pain point (long airport lines) to signal that what's coming will be comically bad. It's a clean framing move that tells the audience exactly what tone to expect without over-promising.
Original quote: “This is going to be worse than the time I was stuck behind Robert Loia at the airport.”
Scoring their own performance — confidence mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:58
Claiming 99% success while immediately admitting 59% reveals the gag is self-sabotage
Why this score: The numbers are clearly made up for laughs, but the quick deflation from '99%' to '59%' shows they're not even trying to sell the bit as impressive. It's honest about how bad the performance is supposed to be.
Original quote: “49.89%. 99%. >> I got 59. Hey.”
Speaker claims their voice hurts after singing, setting up a relatable struggle. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:48
Just a personal observation about their voice hurting — relatable and sets a lighthearted tone.
Why this score: This isn't a factual claim but a personal, subjective experience. It's framed as a casual, self-deprecating comment, which builds rapport with the audience by showing vulnerability and humor. No hidden agenda, just sharing a moment.
Original quote: “I don't know. I feel like that's those
are both pretty good. Ty, maybe
>> Ty
>> Minion song.
>> We get to We get to sing. So long and I
can't sing and I just did Robert Loia
and my [ __ ] voice hurts.”
Speaker mentions "49%" without context, creating an air of mystery or inside joke. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:25
Throws out a random percentage like everyone knows what it means — classic inside joke framing.
Why this score: The mention of '49%' is completely out of context for an external viewer. It's framed as if it's a known metric or score within their group, which can make viewers feel like they're missing out on an inside joke. This technique can build a sense of community for those 'in the know' but leaves others confused, making the information less accessible.
Original quote: “Yeah. 49%. Let's watch this. Rob Robia
[laughter]
raj.”
Speaker pre-emptively apologizes for their singing, managing expectations. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:12
Setting expectations low before a performance is a common, transparent move.
Why this score: This is a straightforward, self-deprecating comment designed to manage audience expectations. By admitting they 'can't sing' and that it will be 'really bad,' the speaker is being transparent and humorous. It's a common rhetorical device to disarm potential criticism and invite laughter, rather than a manipulative framing technique.
Original quote: “I I can't sing, so this is really bad.”
Claims their previous XQC impression was bad enough to redo — self-deprecation framing — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:37
Straightforward admission, no rhetorical tricks — they're just roasting their own take.
Why this score: They openly label their own impression as needing a redo. This is clean framing: no exaggeration, no loaded language, just calling it like they see it.
Original quote: “I want to I want to redo my XQC one. I want to do it again. 15.”
Compares their score to another person's 30% — uses 'almost double' for dramatic effect — Volume Game (45/100)
At 15:08
'Almost double' sounds huge but the actual gap is just 15 points — classic volume game.
Why this score: They amplify the difference by framing 15 as 'almost double' instead of stating the real numbers. The rhetorical move is making a modest gap feel massive through percentage language.
Original quote: “How did that get a higher percent than the one I just did? That got that got almost double what I just did. You got a 30.”
Lists absurd life stages ending in 'resurrect like the holy s push' — escalating absurdity for comedy — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 15:19
The religious reference 'resurrect like the holy s push' is there purely for shock value, not logic.
Why this score: They take a silly life-cycle list and tack on a mangled religious resurrection joke at the end. The framing choice is deliberately irreverent to land the punchline, not to make any actual point.
Original quote: “15minute delay, man. Then what? [__] what? And I shudder to myself like I'm act like I'm bonkers or something, mate. Wait, you're 12? Oh, you got whiskers now. That's great, dude. Then viewers, they'll grow. Fornicate. Get educated. Rad. Fornicate again. Get six fetuses. Perish. Resurrect like the…”
Rates their own performance 54% then immediately calls it 'ass' — self-deprecating framing — No Frame (75/100)
At 16:19
They give themselves a mid score then trash it in the same breath — honest self-assessment.
Why this score: No attempt to spin the 54% as good or bad. They state the number, then immediately undercut it with 'ass.' Clean framing, no tricks.
Original quote: “54%. And I was ass.”
Improv bit mangles Greek names into crude jokes — silly wordplay technique — No Frame (75/100)
At 16:30
They're just riffing on names for laughs, no factual claim to check.
Why this score: The 'technique' here is deliberate mispronunciation and innuendo — pure comedy framing, nothing is presented as truth.
Original quote: “How are we doing, heroes of Greece? ... YOU LEFT THIS FOR STRAIGHT UP BEING INSIDE. ... I am about to start coming.”
Anecdote about firing 47 missiles — framed as wild personal story — Missing Context (45/100)
At 17:52
Story drops huge military number without source — sounds too clean.
Why this score: Calling it 'John Kiryaku' and the perfect 8-hour turnaround is classic anecdote framing: dramatic, uncheckable, and meant to get laughs rather than inform.
Original quote: “JOHN KIRYAKU, have you ever killed anybody? ... 8 hours later, we fired 47 cruise missiles directly into his house because [__] it.”
Claims he never masturbated — straight-faced absurd framing — No Frame (20/100)
At 18:33
Sets up a ridiculous premise then plays it deadpan — classic comedy bit.
Why this score: He's framing the absurd as a straight confession, which is the whole joke. The technique is 'straight-man delivery of nonsense' and it works because the audience knows it's fake.
Original quote: “Bro, you have a jerk off? No. Thank god. My children asked me that and I told them very proudly that I've never taken action that resulted in me coming.”
Sets up a 'half-exception' story — plants curiosity bomb — No Frame (20/100)
At 18:44
Classic 'but wait' hook — promises a story so the listener stays engaged.
Why this score: He's using the 'half-exception' framing to tease the upcoming ridiculous anecdote. It's not lying, it's just baiting the audience for the punchline.
Original quote: “There's one kind of half exception and I think about it all the time. In 2001 I guess it was.”
Claims General Grievous called about presidential assassination — Star Wars reference — No Frame (75/100)
At 20:30
Clear comedic framing — everyone gets the joke immediately
Why this score: This is straightforward absurdist humor using pop culture reference. No attempt to pass it off as real, just a funny misunderstanding setup
Original quote: “I guess it was I was sitting in the morning meeting... General Grievous from Star Wars... if the dark side were going to kill the president, who would actually be in charge of my phone?”
Proudly claims never caused anyone's death — then immediately walks it back — Missing Context (45/100)
At 20:36
Opens with absolute statement then undercuts it — classic 'but actually' pivot
Why this score: Speaker sets up a clean moral stance then immediately qualifies it, making the initial claim feel more like setup for the punchline than a serious assertion
Original quote: “I told them very proudly that I've never taken any action that result in the death of another human being. There's one kind of half exception”
Proudly claims never killed anyone — then immediately adds a "half exception" — Missing Context (45/100)
At 20:36
Starts with a clean moral statement, then undercuts it with an undefined "half exception" — classic setup for a punchline.
Why this score: The speaker frames himself as morally clean, but the vague qualifier invites the audience to brace for a dark twist. Without knowing what the exception is, the initial claim is deliberately incomplete.
Original quote: “I told them very proudly that I've never taken any action that result in the death of another human being. There's one kind of half exception”
Answers a prank call from "General Grievous" with tech support advice — No Frame (75/100)
At 21:10
Straight anecdote with no exaggeration — he just recounts the absurd conversation as it happened.
Why this score: No loaded language or missing context here; the speaker is simply relaying a ridiculous phone call he received while at work. The framing is plain and the story stands on its own absurdity.
Original quote: “Good morning, General Grievous. This is John P... if the dark side were going to kill the president, who would actually be in charge of my phone?”
Interprets 'lightning cable' as iPhone charger instead of assassination method — No Frame (75/100)
At 21:22
Deliberate misinterpretation played for laughs — obvious comedic device
Why this score: Speaker is clearly playing dumb for the bit. The audience understands this is a joke about misunderstanding a threat as tech support
Original quote: “And I said, Well, if you're talking about a lightning cable, like the old ones that you got in your iPhone... they don't work anymore... they don't use them anymore”
Claims US fired 47 missiles killing janitor instead of intended target — Missing Context (45/100)
At 22:07
Specific number and outcome presented as factual — no sourcing provided
Why this score: The precision of '47 cruise missiles' and naming Baghdad suggests a real military operation, but the casual delivery and lack of any verification makes this feel more like a tall tale than documented history
Original quote: “we fired 47 cruise missiles directly into his house because fuck him by then. It was the middle of the night in Baghdad and we killed his janitor”
Claims they bombed a prank caller's house and killed the janitor instead — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 22:07
Delivers an extremely serious military claim with the same casual tone as the rest of the story — tone and content are wildly out of sync.
Why this score: The speaker presents an extraordinary allegation (firing 47 cruise missiles at a civilian home in Baghdad, killing the janitor) with zero sourcing, dates, or verification. The breezy delivery makes it read more like a dark joke than a factual recounting, but the lack of any evidence or context makes the claim itself unverifiable at best and irresponsible at worst.
Original quote: “Eight hours later, we fired 47 cruise missiles directly into his house because fuck him by then. It was the middle of the night in Baghdad and we killed his janitor.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →