Message to Isle of Man before election
Credibility score: 40/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Message to Isle of Man before election" and rated it 40/100 for credibility (a BS score of 60/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-20. Its weakest claim — "Distinguishing 'net zero' as 'engineering' from 'climate science'." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 32 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 32 claims analyzed: 7 scored under 40, 24 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Speaker claims politicians are 'wedded to ideology' despite 'evidence changing'. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:01
He says 'evidence changing' like it's a fact, but doesn't bother to show any of it. Convenient, isn't it? 😈
Why this score: The speaker asserts that 'all the evidence' is changing regarding the climate change act but provides no specific examples or sources for this supposed shift in evidence. This leaves a crucial gap in context, making it impossible to assess the validity of his claim that politicians are ignoring new data due to ideology. It's easy to dismiss opponents as 'ideological' when you don't have to back up your own claims.
Original quote: “I thought my video yesterday was going to be the last message to the Alaman residents and I watched Hostings last night and Capne um Daphne Kaine saying the same old thing. They won't change the climate change act despite all the evidence changing because they're wedded to the ideology.”
Claiming wind and batteries are the cheapest solution for 8p/kWh electricity. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
He's stating this as a direct quote, but it's clearly his interpretation of what 'they' indicated. Where are the receipts for this specific 8p/kWh claim? 💀
Why this score: The speaker attributes a specific, low electricity price (8p/kWh) to an unnamed 'they' who supposedly claim wind and batteries are the cheapest solution. This is presented with certainty, but without any direct evidence or source for this specific price point or the 'cheapest solution' claim. It's a setup for his next point, but the numbers are pulled from thin air.
Original quote: “They actually indicate there that you can survive with wind and batteries and this is the cheapest solution and you're going to get super cheap 8 p per kilowatt hour electricity.”
Declaring the previous claim 'total deception' and 'totally untrue' without specific counter-evidence. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:37
He calls it 'total deception' and 'totally untrue' right after he 'doesn't know' if it's intentional. That's not analysis, that's a tantrum with a thesis. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged language ('total deception', 'totally untrue') to dismiss the previous claim about wind/battery costs. While he hedges by saying he doesn't know if it's intentional, the strong, definitive dismissal is presented without offering specific, verifiable counter-evidence or a detailed breakdown of why the 8p/kWh figure is supposedly impossible or misleading. It's an emotional appeal to discredit, not a factual refutation.
Original quote: “That ladies and gentlemen is total deception. Now whether it's intentional or not I don't know. But one thing I do know is it's totally totally untrue and it shows a naivity of un misunderstanding of the technology.”
Distinguishing 'net zero' as 'engineering' from 'climate science'. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 0:53
He's trying to separate 'net zero' from 'climate science' like they're not intertwined. One is the goal, the other is the reason. That's not a distinction, that's a dodge. 💀
Why this score: The speaker attempts to draw a sharp line between 'net zero' and 'climate science,' claiming the former is purely 'engineering.' This creates a false dichotomy. Net zero targets are fundamentally driven by climate science, which identifies the need to reduce emissions. The engineering solutions are a means to achieve the goals set by climate science. Separating them like this downplays the scientific basis for net zero policies.
Original quote: “And don't forget we're not dealing with climate science here. We're dealing with net zero. That's engineering.”
Asserting the Isle of Man has been 'misgoverned' for the last five years. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:08
He's calling their governance 'misgoverned' right before an election. That's not an observation, that's a campaign slogan. 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses the emotionally charged term 'misgoverned' to describe the Isle of Man's leadership over the past five years, directly preceding an election. This is a subjective judgment presented as a fact, designed to influence voter sentiment rather than provide objective analysis. It's a common political tactic to frame the opposition negatively.
Original quote: “before the election because I believe you've been so misgoverned in your last five years who your last last time you elected these people in that”
Claiming the Isle of Man received 2,500 times less for its wind farm than others. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:02
He's throwing out '2 and a half thousand times less' like it's a simple comparison. What exactly are we comparing? Land lease? Power price? It's a number without a story. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker presents a dramatic comparison, stating the Isle of Man received '2 and a half thousand times less' for its wind farm than others. However, he doesn't specify what 'less' refers to – is it the lease price for the land, the revenue from electricity, or something else entirely? Without this crucial context, the number is designed to shock and outrage, but lacks the detail needed for a fair comparison. Different wind farm projects have vastly different terms, scales, and market conditions.
Original quote: “Yeah. £160. We We got 2 and a half thousand times less than everyone else in the street got.”
Blames 'incompetence' for a 'road to bankruptcy' — classic fear-mongering. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 2:39
He's pushing the 'incompetence leads to ruin' button hard. It's all about fear, not facts. 💀
Why this score: This is a classic political tactic: paint a dire picture of the future ('road to bankruptcy') and attribute it to a vague negative quality ('incompetence'). It's designed to trigger an emotional response (fear, urgency) rather than present a reasoned argument with specific evidence of financial collapse. It's a call to action based on alarm, not data.
Original quote: “residents of the man need to start addressing the incompetence behind that because if you leave that incompetence in place and the systems that help conceal it in place then you you're just on a on a on a road to bankruptcy.”
Declares no wind backup exists besides gas — a bold, absolute claim. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 3:04
He says 'no such thing' with such certainty. There are other options, just not always 'efficient' or 'economic' yet. 😈
Why this score: The speaker makes an absolute statement ('no such thing as backup... besides gas') with high confidence. While gas is a common and effective backup, other technologies like pumped-hydro storage, concentrated solar power with thermal storage, and even advanced battery systems (though he dismisses them later) are being developed and deployed to address intermittency. His claim oversimplifies a complex energy challenge by presenting it as a binary choice, ignoring ongoing innovation and existing alternatives.
Original quote: “There is no such thing as backup to intermittency with wind uh besides gas, right? There isn't.”
Claims no 'efficient viable economic system' for energy storage exists — a convenient dismissal. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 3:32
He's moving the goalposts from 'no backup' to 'no *efficient, viable, economic* system.' That's a different argument entirely. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker shifts from a categorical 'you can't store it' to 'no efficient viable economic system to do that.' While large-scale, long-duration energy storage at competitive costs is indeed a challenge, this phrasing dismisses all current and emerging storage solutions (like various battery chemistries, hydrogen, compressed air, etc.) by setting a high, subjective bar ('efficient, viable, economic') without defining it. It's a convenient way to ignore progress and alternatives by focusing on the current limitations rather than the existence of the technology itself.
Original quote: “So why can't you store it? Well, you can't store it because um there is no efficient viable economic system to do that.”
Asserts UK battery farms only power the grid for 'a couple of minutes' — a highly specific, damning stat. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 4:09
He's giving you a 'couple of minutes' like it's the whole story. That's a specific, tiny slice of the grid's needs, not the full picture. 🍒
Why this score: The claim that 'all the battery farms in the UK would only run the grid for a couple of minutes' is a classic cherry-pick. While technically true that current battery storage capacity is a small fraction of total grid demand, it misrepresents the *purpose* of these batteries. They are primarily used for grid stability, frequency regulation, and short-term balancing (as he hints at with 'micromanagement'), not to power the entire grid for extended periods. Presenting this number out of context makes it sound like batteries are useless, when they serve a critical, albeit different, function.
Original quote: “All the battery farms in the UK would only run the grid for a couple of minutes, two two minutes maybe. That's all.”
Claims £4 billion cost for Isle of Man battery storage, needing renewal every 10-16 years. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:30
He's throwing out a £4 billion figure with a 10-16 year lifespan like it's gospel — but where's the actual breakdown? 😈
Why this score: The speaker states a precise, enormous cost and a specific renewal cycle for a large-scale battery system. While the general idea of high costs for grid-scale storage is plausible, presenting such exact figures without any source or detailed calculation for the Isle of Man specifically, then declaring it 'not viable,' is a classic confidence mismatch. It's a big number meant to shut down discussion, not inform it.
Original quote: “To do that for the island of man, you'd have to spend in the region of £4,000 million. And you'd have to spend that maybe every 12 years to renew the battery. Maybe 10 years if you're unlucky, maybe 15 or 16 if you're lucky. It's not viable.”
Claims no one in the world uses batteries for intermittency backup. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 4:44
Says 'no one in the world does it' for intermittency, then pivots to the UK's gas system. That's not how it works, darling. 💀
Why this score: The speaker claims that no one uses batteries for intermittency backup, which is a gross oversimplification. While full grid-scale battery reliance for entire countries is rare, batteries are increasingly used globally for grid stability, frequency regulation, and short-term intermittency smoothing, often alongside other power sources. Dismissing all use cases with 'no one does it' is a false equivalence, ignoring the nuanced roles batteries play in modern grids.
Original quote: “That's why no one in the world does it.”
Asserts the continued necessity of 'pole rose' and gas systems, claiming batteries aren't for intermittency. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 5:09
He's 'promising' the only solution is 'pole rose' and gas, then declares batteries useless for intermittency. So much certainty, so little nuance. 😈
Why this score: The speaker makes a definitive, unqualified statement that 'pole rose' (likely referring to traditional power plants or infrastructure) and gas systems are indispensable, and batteries are 'not for intermittency backup' and 'no one uses them for that.' This is an overconfident generalization. While gas and traditional plants still play a major role, battery storage is increasingly integrated into grids globally for various forms of intermittency management, frequency regulation, and short-term backup. The claim presents a false dichotomy, ignoring the evolving hybrid nature of modern energy…
Original quote: “I can promise you, you still need pole rose. You're not getting rid of pole rose. It's the only system just like the UK we have to keep and maintain our gas system otherwise you'd have real big problems. So batteries are not for intermittency backup and no one uses them for that.”
Describes synchronous condensers as very expensive, costing tens of millions, and being spinning flywheels in a vacuum. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:08
He's describing synchronous condensers and their cost. It's a straightforward explanation of a grid component. 😈
Why this score: The speaker accurately describes synchronous condensers as expensive devices, costing 'tens of millions,' which are used for grid stability (inertia) and are essentially spinning flywheels. This is a generally correct description of their function and typical cost range in grid applications. There's no obvious rhetorical trick here; it's a technical explanation.
Original quote: “That's done by a very expensive costing tens of millions synchronous condensers we call it, which are spinning flywheels in a vacuum.”
He's calling the climate change act 'net zero madness' and citing a '70% error' from government reports. Loaded language and a specific, unverified number. 💀 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 6:35
Calling it 'madness' is pure emotional button-pushing. And that '70% error' is dropped like a bomb with no specifics. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged language ('net zero madness') to frame the Climate Change Act negatively. He then cites a '70% error' from 'government reports' without specifying which reports, what the error pertains to, or how it was calculated. This is a classic move to sound authoritative while providing no verifiable details. It's designed to trigger outrage, not inform. 😈
Original quote: “Now, last night I did watch another hustings and there I saw Daffhne Kane who's been one of the major drivers behind your net zero madness. I I saw her again state that she would not touch the climate change act because when people don't change when there's evidence to change it and there is and…”
He says he'll debate anyone but the 'renewable center' because they're 'like little children' with 'no understanding'. That's not a debate offer — that's a pre-emptive dismissal. 😈 — Straw Man (20/100)
At 7:34
He's setting up his opponents as ignorant children before the debate even starts. Classic straw man, making them easy to knock down. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker claims he's willing to debate anyone, but then immediately dismisses a key group ('your renewable center') by likening them to 'little children' with 'no understanding'. This isn't an open invitation to debate; it's a rhetorical tactic to discredit potential opponents and avoid engaging with their actual arguments by painting them as intellectually inferior. He's creating a caricature of his opposition to make himself seem superior. 💀
Original quote: “And so nobody you know will debate me. I'm happy to come over and debate. I mean debating your climate change center happy to debate anybody but your renewable center but that would be like bit like debating little children I mean who have no understanding whatsoever on the subject they're…”
He's claiming his videos are suddenly hitting 10,000 views, up from 1,000, and it's 'having an effect'. That's a self-congratulatory leap from views to impact. 📈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 8:01
He's equating a jump in view counts with 'having an effect' on the Isle of Man. Views don't equal influence, mortal. 💀
Why this score: The speaker notes a significant increase in his video views (from 1,000 to 10,000) and immediately concludes this is 'having an effect in the Isle of Man'. While increased viewership can indicate growing interest, it doesn't automatically translate into political influence or a change in public opinion. He's making a confident assertion about impact based solely on a metric that doesn't directly measure it. It's a common self-aggrandizing move. 🔥
Original quote: “and when I publish these videos I don't expect big numbers it's lucky to get if it's an isan video everyone else turns off so lucky to get a thousand. But suddenly now I'm getting, you know, a heading for 10,000 on that first one and and yesterday's is rising up fast.”
Framing personal sanity as a global mission — a classic emotional button. 😈 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:30
He's making his personal quest for 'sanity' the driving force, then scaling it to '70 million' as if it's a universal struggle. — It's all about making you feel his 'pain'.
Why this score: This is a classic move: frame your personal motivation as a noble, relatable struggle for 'sanity' in a 'mad world'. Then, immediately scale it up to a global problem ('70 million') to make his local efforts seem more significant and altruistic. It's designed to make you emotionally connect with his cause, rather than scrutinize the actual arguments. It's a setup for 'I'm doing this for *us*.' 💀
Original quote: “All I'm about is um trying to give myself sanity in a mad world. And if I can't help stop it in a small society of 80 odd thousand, what chance do I stand in the 70 million sort of thing?”
Declaring the electorate 'badly served' and demanding 'complete change' — a loaded, absolute statement. 🔥 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:54
He's not suggesting change; he's declaring the current state 'badly served' and demanding 'complete change' as the only option. — No room for nuance, just an ultimatum.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'so badly served' and 'complete change' to create a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction. It's a blanket condemnation of the current governance without offering specific examples or acknowledging any potential positives. This framing aims to push the audience towards his desired outcome (a 'complete change') by presenting it as an undeniable necessity, rather than a choice among options. It's a classic 'things are terrible, only I can fix it' narrative. 😈
Original quote: “And you've been so badly served. You really do need to use this election to bring about a complete change in who governs you. You really, really do.”
The 'no one will debate me' humble-brag, then claiming opposition just reveals 'emperor's clothes' — pure confidence mismatch. 💀 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 9:08
He claims no one will debate him, then says opposition only helps him 'give evidence more clearly' and expose 'emperor's clothes.' — He's already declared victory before the debate even starts.
Why this score: This is a beautiful display of pre-emptive confidence. He sets himself up as a lone wolf ('billy no mates') whom no one dares debate, which already implies his superior position. Then, he claims that any opposition would only serve to highlight his own 'evidence' and expose his opponents as having 'nothing there' (the 'emperor's clothes' metaphor). He's not inviting a debate; he's inviting a public execution of his opponents' arguments, all while framing himself as the humble truth-teller. It's a confidence game, not an open discussion. 🔥
Original quote: “I'm a billy no mates. No one will debate me. I'm happy to come across and do this. I'd love to be able to come across and have a huge maybe two or three hour question hour session with your future MKs, you know, members of the House of Keys and and explain things to them and by all means have…”
Dismissing the Isle of Man's global reputation as non-existent — a bold, unverified claim. 😈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 9:44
He confidently states 'no one even knows hardly who you are' about the Isle of Man. — That's a pretty sweeping generalization with zero backing.
Why this score: The speaker makes a very strong, dismissive claim about the Isle of Man's international recognition, stating 'No one even knows hardly who you are.' This is a broad generalization that lacks any specific evidence. While the Isle of Man might not be a global superpower, it has a distinct identity, a long history, and specific economic niches (like offshore finance and gaming) that give it a certain international profile. To claim 'no one even knows' them is an overstatement designed to undermine any perceived global standing and make their local concerns seem insignificant. It's a rhetorical…
Original quote: “I've got news for you. No one even knows hardly who you are, let alone reputation.”
Claiming 'all countries' are 'beginning to drop' Net Zero and it's 'crumbling' — a massive, unsubstantiated generalization. 🚩 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 9:56
He says 'all the countries in the world are beginning to drop it' and it's 'crumbling' — a huge, unverified claim about global policy. — Where's the list of these 'all countries,' mortal?
Why this score: This is a classic 'everyone's doing it' fallacy, but in reverse. The speaker claims 'all the countries in the world are beginning to drop' Net Zero policies and that it's 'crumbling in lots and lots of places.' This is a massive, unsubstantiated generalization. While some countries might be adjusting their timelines or approaches, a wholesale abandonment by 'all countries' is simply not supported by current global climate policy trends. He offers no specific examples, data, or sources to back up this sweeping statement, relying instead on the sheer confidence of the assertion to make it sound…
Original quote: “All the countries in the world are beginning to drop it. by the way, you know, it really is crumbling in lots and lots of places.”
Attacking an opponent's knowledge as 'nothing' and claiming 'I know better' — a straw man argument with a side of ego. 😈 — Straw Man (20/100)
At 10:04
He's putting words in his opponent's mouth ('I know better than you') and then dismissing her as knowing 'nothing' about the subject. — A classic setup to tear down a caricature.
Why this score: The speaker creates a straw man by attributing the phrase 'I know better than you' to his opponent, Daphne Kay, and then immediately dismisses her as knowing 'nothing about the subject.' He doesn't engage with any specific arguments she might have made; instead, he constructs a simplified, arrogant version of her position and then attacks that. This allows him to elevate his own perceived expertise ('I know better') without having to actually debate her points. It's a convenient way to discredit an opponent without doing the intellectual work. 💀
Original quote: “And what she's saying is, I know better, Islam man public. Um, I know better than you and I know so much better even though I know she knows nothing about the subject because uh her statements in the past show she has no proper understanding. And I I know better.”
He's saying if they don't vote his way, there's 'no hope.' That's a classic fear tactic. 💀 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 10:32
Presenting a single election as the absolute last chance for 'hope' is pure emotional manipulation. It's not a choice, it's a threat. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker uses 'no hope' to create a sense of urgency and desperation, implying that failure to follow his advice will lead to an irreversible negative outcome. This bypasses rational consideration by appealing directly to fear of loss, rather than presenting a balanced argument about the potential consequences of different political choices.
Original quote: “And and I I really would advise you to think carefully about which members of your House of Keys you put in this time because if this doesn't bring about the change, then I think there's no hope.”
He's comparing a £400,000 house to £160, calling it a 'ratio.' That's not a ratio, that's a joke. 😈 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 10:49
Comparing a house price to a tiny, arbitrary number like £160 as a 'ratio' is absurd. It's meant to shock, not to inform. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by taking a real-world value (£400,000 house) and comparing it to a ridiculously low, non-comparable figure (£160) to illustrate a 'ratio.' This isn't a meaningful comparison of value or loss; it's an exaggerated, hypothetical scenario designed to evoke outrage rather than provide a factual basis for anger. It's a rhetorical trick to make a point seem more extreme than it is.
Original quote: “trust people who'd sell a 40100,000 house for £160 because that's the ratio we're talking about. I'd have been pretty angry with that resident, sorry, that relative who sold it for that. I bet he did have a cure of buyers at £160.”
He's telling people to be 'angry' about 'billions of pounds difference' and 'extra costs' without naming a single specific project or cost. Just vibes. 💀 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 11:07
Demanding anger over 'billions' and 'extra costs' without any specifics is just pushing an emotional button. Where are the numbers, mortal? 🔥
Why this score: The speaker uses vague, large figures ('billions of pounds') and general complaints ('extra costs,' 'misses out all the extra costs') without providing any specific examples, projects, or verifiable data. This technique aims to generate an emotional response (anger) based on a perceived grievance, rather than on concrete, fact-checkable information. It's a classic move to stir sentiment without having to back it up.
Original quote: “You should be angry with billions of pounds there difference. you should be angry w with with with what you're being told which misses out all the extra costs. They simply don't count in the costs.”
He's using his '300 videos' as proof of his authority. Quantity over quality, as always. 😈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 11:24
The number of videos you've made doesn't equal expertise or correctness. It just means you talk a lot. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker attempts to establish credibility by citing the sheer volume of content he has produced ('over 300 videos'). While this indicates persistence, it doesn't inherently validate the accuracy or depth of his claims. It's a common tactic to equate effort or output with authority, rather than demonstrating actual expertise or providing evidence for the claims made within those videos.
Original quote: “I've been fighting it for years. I've done over 300 videos on it.”
He's warning the Isle of Man not to make the 'same mistakes' as the UK, but he hasn't actually detailed what those mistakes are. Just a vague threat. 🚩 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 12:03
Warning against 'mistakes' without specifying them is just fear-mongering. What exactly are they supposed to avoid? 💀
Why this score: The speaker issues a warning to the Isle of Man to avoid 'the same mistakes we've made in the UK' without providing any specific examples or details of these alleged mistakes. This creates an ominous but undefined threat, leaving the audience to infer or imagine the negative consequences. It's a way to influence opinion by invoking fear of the unknown, rather than by presenting clear, actionable information.
Original quote: “but don't make the same mistakes we've made in the UK.”
Dismisses renewable energy claims as 'not understanding maths' — a classic dismissal. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:30
He says 'arithmetic maths' like it's a simple sum, but energy grids are a bit more complex than that, aren't they? 😈
Why this score: The speaker confidently dismisses claims about cheap wind and battery power by saying it shows a lack of understanding of 'arithmetic maths.' This implies the issue is simple, when in reality, energy grid economics and renewable integration involve complex engineering, economic modeling, and policy considerations beyond basic arithmetic. It's a simplification to make the opposing view seem foolish.
Original quote: “um, to claim that you can operate with wind and batteries and the cost is going to be super cheap. just ignore just not understanding anything about the subject or the maths involved. It's arithmetic maths. It's not complicated.”
Lists benefits of renewables, then immediately sets up a straw man to knock down. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 12:50
He lists 'benefits' like 'free power' that no serious proposal actually makes, just to tear it down. Convenient. 💀
Why this score: The speaker lists potential benefits of renewable energy, including 'surplus power could be supplied free.' This 'free' claim is often a misrepresentation of how surplus energy is managed or priced, setting up a straw man argument. No serious energy policy suggests truly 'free' power; rather, it might refer to periods of very low marginal cost or specific grid management strategies. By focusing on 'free,' he can then easily dismiss the entire concept.
Original quote: “about um other benefits. Energy security, autonomy, no fuel imports, export revenue, new industry and jobs surplus power could be supplied free.”
Claims UK consumers pay for unwanted renewable energy, framing it as 'madness' and 'no free energy.' — Missing Context (45/100)
At 13:01
He says 'we pay for power we don't need' like it's a scam, but that's how grid stability and capacity payments work. It's not 'free,' but it's not 'madness' either. 😈
Why this score: The speaker claims that in the UK, consumers 'have to pay for all the solar and power that we don't need' and that 'there is no free energy.' While it's true that energy generation and grid stability mechanisms involve costs (like capacity payments or curtailment costs for excess generation), framing this as simply 'paying for power you don't need' without explaining the complex economic and operational reasons for these costs (e.g., ensuring supply, grid balancing, investment in infrastructure) is missing crucial context. It paints a picture of waste without explaining the system's…
Original quote: “Let me tell you about this free business. There is no such thing. All energy costs in the UK. We have to pay for all the solar and power that we don't need. We still have to pay for it because that's the deal. Yeah. It's not based on your demand. It's a based on whatever they can give you are able…”
Dismisses opposing views as 'absurd' and coming from 'children' — a classic ad hominem. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 13:36
He calls their claims 'absurd' and then dismisses them as 'children.' That's not an argument, that's just a tantrum with a thesis. 💀
Why this score: The speaker concludes by calling the sustainability center's claims 'totally absurd' and then asks, 'what can you expect from children?' This is a clear use of loaded language and an ad hominem attack. Instead of refuting the claims with evidence or logic, he dismisses the proponents as immature and foolish, attempting to discredit their arguments by discrediting them personally. It's a cheap shot to avoid a real debate.
Original quote: “That is a totally absurd claim. But then that what can you expect from children?”
See the full analysis with timestamps →