We Voiced Jujutsu Kaisen & Made it PEAK AGAIN
Credibility score: 35/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "We Voiced Jujutsu Kaisen & Made it PEAK AGAIN" and rated it 35/100 for credibility (a BS score of 65/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-11. Its weakest claim — "Claiming joking scientifically improves penis length — a clear, absurd assertion." — scored 0/100 and was flagged as bs. 18 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 18 claims analyzed: 9 scored under 40, 8 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of chaotic voice acting and jokes. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
This intro is a rapid-fire montage of the most absurd moments, setting a chaotic, comedic tone for the whole video. They're showing us the peak absurdity right away!
Why this score: This is a classic highlight reel opening, designed to grab attention and give a taste of the video's most outrageous content. It frames the video as pure entertainment and comedy, preparing the viewer for a wild ride rather than a serious analysis.
Original quote: “I can explain it in a long-winded backstory. What is your drug addiction? Frag. OH MY GOD, IT'S EMINEM. [screaming] I'M GOING TO TAKE YOUR CHILD AWAY. WHAT? DID YOU HIT ON HER? SUPER CHANCE. [screaming]”
Speaker claims anime parodies are a 'staple' for their content and a 'win-win' for them and viewers. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:16
Just stating their content niche and audience reception — pretty straightforward self-description. No tricks here!
Why this score: This is a simple, direct statement about the creator's identity and their relationship with their audience regarding anime parodies. It's framed as a mutual enjoyment, which is a fair and common way for creators to introduce their work. There's no hidden agenda or manipulative language; it's just setting the stage.
Original quote: “Anime parodies have slowly but surely become a staple for who I am as a content creator, AND I LOVE IT. You guys enjoy watching these, and I enjoy making them. It's a win-win.”
Claiming to be 'surprisingly' paying voice actors — a subtle humble brag. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:16
The 'surprisingly' adds a touch of self-deprecating humor, but also subtly highlights that they're now a 'real' operation.
Why this score: By saying they are 'surprisingly' paying their voice actors, the speaker is using loaded language. It frames the act of payment as something unexpected or a recent development, implying a growth in their project's legitimacy or success. It's a subtle way to convey progress and professionalism without directly boasting, making it more relatable and endearing to the audience. It's not a lie, but it's framed to elicit a specific positive perception.
Original quote: “Now with the clip hot and ready, it is time to introduce the voice actors who I surprisingly am actually paying now.”
Using gross-out humor — aiming for shock and discomfort. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 3:02
Okay, this is just trying to be as offensive and shocking as possible for a laugh. It's pure gross-out humor.
Why this score: This is a prime example of loaded language used for extreme gross-out humor. The explicit and vulgar imagery is designed to shock and provoke a strong, visceral reaction, likely laughter or disgust. The framing here is entirely about pushing boundaries and being edgy, rather than making any coherent point. It's a deliberate choice of words to maximize impact, even if that impact is discomfort.
Original quote: “You like you like me sucking that period blood off of you. Taste [laughter]”
A character claims to eliminate intoxication, framed as a moral crusade against personal freedom. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 4:27
Presents a false dilemma: either total sobriety or constant death from overdose/drunk driving. Ignores moderation or personal choice.
Why this score: The framing here is a classic false dilemma. The character states that people 'die constantly' from overdosing and drunk driving, then immediately offers a solution to 'eliminate intoxication' entirely. This sets up a binary choice: either everyone is completely sober (and 'pure') or everyone is dying from substance abuse. It completely ignores the vast middle ground of responsible consumption, personal freedom, and the complexities of addiction. It's a rhetorical move to make a drastic solution seem like the only logical one by exaggerating the negative alternative.
Original quote: “I swear. I just want you to be sober. People die constantly from overdosing, drunk driving, and this is it. With this orb, I will eliminate intoxication through high being drunk. All of it. Drugs are amazing, dude. [laughter] I get some of the best [ __ ] off of me. Good luck. [screaming] Now this…”
Using a personal attack and an inflammatory accusation — classic ad hominem. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 6:43
Directly insulting and making a serious, unsubstantiated accusation. Pure emotional button pushing.
Why this score: This is a clear example of loaded language and an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the previous statement about Gura, the speaker resorts to personal insults and a highly offensive, baseless accusation ('you like kids'). This is designed to provoke a strong emotional reaction and discredit the opponent rather than engaging with any actual point. A neutral framing would address the topic of Gura or the previous statement directly, without personal attacks.
Original quote: “You smell like [ __ ] and you like kids.”
Claiming joking scientifically improves penis length — a clear, absurd assertion. — BS (0/100)
At 9:49
Bro really said 'scientifically proven' for something so obviously false. That's a classic confidence mismatch. 💀
Why this score: This is a prime example of 'Confidence Mismatch' and 'Anonymous Authority' combined with a 'Plain Sales Pitch' for an absurd idea. The speaker asserts a ridiculous claim ('joking is scientifically proven to improve penis length') with absolute confidence, despite there being no scientific basis for it. The phrase 'scientifically proven' is used to lend false authority without citing any actual studies or sources, which is a common rhetorical trick. A neutral framing would involve citing actual research or acknowledging it's a joke, which they clearly aren't doing here in a serious way.
Original quote: “No, joking is scientifically proven to improve penis length by a few centimeters over the years.”
The speaker claims their normal length is three and can go up to five, arguing about penis size. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 10:27
This whole segment is just a comedic, exaggerated argument about penis size, not meant to be taken seriously. It's pure improv.
Why this score: They're clearly playing characters and riffing on a ridiculous topic. The numbers are arbitrary and part of the joke, not actual measurements or claims about reality. It's a classic 'just for laughs' moment.
Original quote: “it's soft? No, that's that's the hard length. One inch. So, you're telling me it's like 0.1 in when it's hard. 0.61. Actually, you [ __ ] dumbass. The three is just my normal length. I can go up to A FIVE, YOU KNOW.”
Speaker claims their 'non-biased opinion' is that the improv deserves a subscription — an opinion framed as objective. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 13:21
Calling an opinion 'non-biased' is classic loaded language. It tries to give subjective feelings objective weight. 👀
Why this score: This is a classic example of 'Loaded Language.' The speaker just admitted to 'recency bias' seconds before, then immediately pivots to 'my humble, non-biased opinion.' The phrase 'non-biased opinion' is loaded because it attempts to lend unearned authority and objectivity to what is clearly a subjective personal preference. A neutral framing would simply state, 'I think it deserves a subscription' or 'In my opinion, it deserves a subscription.' By adding 'non-biased,' they're trying to steer the viewer into accepting their opinion as fact, despite just admitting to a bias.
Original quote: “The energy between the cast just flows together so well, and personally, in my humble, non-biased opinion, that deserves a subscription.”
The speaker is roleplaying a character with a 'robot pornette fetish' and desire for Android 16. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 14:34
This whole segment is just pure, unadulterated improv comedy. They're leaning into the absurdity for laughs.
Why this score: This isn't a factual claim, but rather a comedic bit where the speaker is engaging in a fictional scenario. The 'robot pornette fetish' and desire for Android 16 are part of the roleplay, designed to be humorous and over-the-top. It's just for entertainment, not to be taken literally.
Original quote: “We all see who has the robot pornette fetish. Yeah. Yeah. Know, we got you. What? You want to stick it into Android 16, too? [laughter] No, PERHAPS IT SHOULD be a definite yes. Android 16's a baddy. I'm going to get in that robot SEAT AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO STOP ME.”
The creator thanks viewers, framing their support as funding 'roulette spins' rather than traditional bills. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 17:24
They're using 'roulette spins' as a playful, self-deprecating stand-in for 'bills' — it's a lighthearted way to acknowledge financial support without sounding too serious or demanding.
Why this score: This is a classic use of loaded language, specifically humor and self-deprecation. By saying 'roulette spins' instead of 'rent' or 'groceries,' they're framing the financial support as funding a fun, slightly irresponsible hobby rather than essential living costs. It makes the request for support feel less like a burden and more like participation in a shared joke or lifestyle. A neutral framing would simply state that viewer support helps fund the channel's operations or the creator's livelihood.
Original quote: “I just really appreciate you guys watching these videos. It's thanks to you that this passion project really pays the bills. And by bills, I mean the roulette spins.”
Speaker makes a racially charged joke about 'black people' and 'crime'. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 18:40
This is a deeply problematic, racially insensitive joke that relies on harmful stereotypes for shock value.
Why this score: The speaker is using a racist stereotype for a 'joke,' which is a classic 'emotional button' play, but in a really bad way. It's designed to provoke a reaction, likely laughter from some and discomfort/offense from others, by invoking a harmful and untrue generalization about an entire group of people. This isn't just 'edgy humor'; it's perpetuating a stereotype that has real-world negative consequences.
Original quote: “Did you know black people are [laughter] a high chance? I'm doing I'm doing a crime.”
Claiming bisexuality isn't real and demanding one "pick a side" — a classic false dilemma. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 21:42
This is a textbook false dilemma, reducing a complex identity to two binary options. It completely ignores the spectrum of human sexuality.
Why this score: The statement 'THAT'S NOT REAL. PICK A SIDE. YOU CAN'T BE 50/50' presents a false dilemma by implying that one must be exclusively gay or straight, and that bisexuality (or any non-binary sexuality) is not a valid or real identity. This framing ignores the established understanding of sexual orientation as a spectrum and forces a choice between two extremes, which is a common rhetorical tactic to dismiss nuanced realities. A neutral framing would acknowledge the diversity of sexual identities without imposing arbitrary binaries.
Original quote: “THAT'S NOT REAL. PICK [screaming] A SIDE. YOU [laughter] CAN'T BE 50/50.”
Suggesting communism will make a country 'without pay' and work now despite past failures. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 23:06
Equating 'without pay' with communism and ignoring its historical economic failures is a huge leap. — It's a comedic take, but still a wild claim.
Why this score: The speaker is framing communism as a solution to a 'nation without pay' (implying no taxes or free goods, which is a misrepresentation of communist ideals) while glibly dismissing its historical failures with 'it never worked before, but we can make it work now.' This is a comedic, but still a 'false equivalence' and 'missing context' framing, as it simplifies a complex political and economic system and ignores its real-world consequences for comedic effect. A neutral framing would acknowledge the historical economic and social outcomes of communist states.
Original quote: “IN ORDER for this country to go to a
nation without pay, we must SUCCESSFULLY
MAKE A COMMUNIST SYSTEM. IT NEVER WORKED
BEFORE, BUT WE CAN MAKE IT WORK NOW.
[screaming]”
The speaker passionately claims they want to be the dinosaur piece in Monopoly, escalating with expletives and a dramatic declaration about lawyers. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 24:36
Pure emotional appeal and hyperbole to emphasize their desire for the dinosaur piece — it's all about the drama, not logic. 😂
Why this score: This is a classic 'Emotional Button' play. The speaker isn't making a factual claim, but rather using exaggerated language, expletives, and a dramatic scenario (being 'hit by the law' over a Monopoly piece) to evoke a strong, humorous reaction from the audience. It's designed to be entertaining and relatable to anyone who's ever gotten overly competitive in a board game, rather than to convey information. A neutral framing would simply state their preference for the piece without the theatrical flair.
Original quote: “I want to be the dinosaur. I DON'T GIVE A [ __ ] NO. THEIR OCCUPATION [screaming] IS A LAWYER. I'M BEING HIT BY THE LAW.”
Speaker makes an absurd, shocking claim for comedic effect. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 27:43
Okay, that's just... a lot. Clearly going for shock value and dark humor. 😬
Why this score: This statement is so outlandish and designed to provoke a strong reaction that it functions purely as a comedic, 'shock value' moment rather than a factual claim. It's meant to be absurd, not taken literally. The framing here is entirely for entertainment and to push boundaries, not to convey information. A neutral framing would be... well, there isn't one, because the point is the absurdity.
Original quote: “I cosplay an R-rated Judy Hops for elementary schoolers at birthday parties.”
Accusations of grooming a 14-year-old boy, then immediately defending Mr. Beast. — Classic Straw Man setup. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 28:30
They're setting up a ridiculous, offensive accusation (grooming) only to immediately pivot to defending Mr. Beast. — It's a distraction tactic.
Why this score: This is a textbook straw man argument. They're creating an extreme, easily refutable (and frankly, disgusting) accusation about 'grooming a 14-year-old' that no one actually made, then using that to frame the defense of Mr. Beast. It diverts attention from any actual criticisms and makes the 'defenders' look like they're fighting against something truly evil, rather than addressing legitimate points. It's a way to make their side seem more righteous by battling a phantom enemy.
Original quote: “DIDN'T think the rumors were true. He is going to try and assault me in the challenge. Mr. Beast is my best friend. I will continue defending him till the day I die. You're Ava Chris Tyson. My good job. You're like Shadman. Shut up. You groom that 14year-old boy. You sick [ __ ] Hey, he was 14.”
The speaker uses extreme accusations and then a shocking counter-statement, creating a 'Straw Man' argument. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 30:30
They're throwing out wild accusations like 'pedophile' then immediately trying to deflect with 'I like kids' — classic straw man setup. 🤦♀️
Why this score: This segment uses a straw man fallacy by attributing extreme, easily refutable accusations ('phobic', 'pedophile') to Ava, then immediately dismissing them with a non-sequitur ('I like kids. Doesn't make me a bad person.'). The intent is to make the initial accusations seem absurd and to distract from any actual criticism, rather than engaging with it directly. It's a comedic bit, but rhetorically, it's a straw man.
Original quote: “I'm swallowing that [ __ ] Oh, thank you for all the training. Ava, you're phobic. You're transphobic. You're You're homophobic. You're pedophile, man. I'm not transphobic. I like kids. Doesn't make me a bad person.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →