Daniel — Debater analytics

Reasoning beyond sympathy (appeal to sympathy)

Met: Uses relevant reasons or evidence; emotion may add context but does not replace support for the conclusion.

Partly met: Combines a sympathy appeal with reasons, but the role of the appeal in the conclusion remains unclear.

Not met: Asks for acceptance of a claim on the basis of pity or suffering instead of reasons relevant to whether that claim is true. Record the conclusion, appeal and missing logical connection.

Direct answers (question evasion)

Met: Answers the recorded question directly, or explicitly explains a justified limitation or why its premise cannot be accepted.

Partly met: Answers part of the question but leaves a material part unresolved; deliberate evasion is not established.

Not met: The documented response avoids the clear question despite an opportunity to answer. Record the exact question, response and any follow-up; a missing answer alone is insufficient.

Topic focus (topic diversion)

Met: Keeps the response connected to the issue or explains why a change of topic is relevant.

Partly met: Moves between topics and leaves the relevance of part of the response unclear.

Not met: Replaces the disputed point with an unrelated topic rather than addressing it. Record both the original point and the diversion.

Argumentation

Met: Connects the claim to explicit reasons and explains why the conclusion follows.

Partly met: Provides some reasons but leaves a material logical step unsupported.

Not met: In the reviewed passage the claim is asserted without supporting reasons, or the conclusion does not follow from the reasons given. Identify which problem is documented. Missing notes alone do not establish missing arguments.

Evidence quality

Met: Uses identifiable, relevant evidence accurately and explains how it supports the claim.

Partly met: Uses relevant evidence but leaves its reliability or connection to the claim unclear.

Not met: In the reviewed passage a claim needing evidence is left unsupported, or the cited evidence is misrepresented or does not support the claim. Identify the reviewed scope; an empty source field alone is insufficient.

Refutation

Met: Addresses the actual opposing argument with reasons and explains the consequence for the debate.

Partly met: Addresses part of the opposing argument but leaves a central objection unanswered.

Not met: The recorded response evades or misrepresents the opposing argument.

Organization

Met: Presents a clear claim and a coherent sequence of reasons relevant to the question.

Partly met: The structure is partly clear but important links or priorities are difficult to follow.

Not met: The recorded passage lacks an identifiable argument structure relevant to the question.

Clarity

Met: Explains terms and reasoning in language and delivery that can be followed.

Partly met: The meaning can be followed but important terms or steps remain unclear.

Not met: The recorded passage cannot be followed because key terms or reasoning are unexplained.

Respectful conduct (personal attacks)

Met: The reviewed passage challenges ideas without personal insults or attacks.

Partly met: The passage contains a possible personal remark whose target or meaning is ambiguous.

Not met: The recorded passage contains a direct personal insult or attack instead of addressing the argument.

Context fidelity

Met: Addresses the current question and preserves the meaning of the cited passage in its surrounding argument.

Partly met: Addresses part of the question or passage, but leaves relevant surrounding context unexplained.

Not met: Changes the subject or uses a passage in a way contradicted by the surrounding context you recorded.

Exegesis

Met: Supports the interpretation with explicit textual, linguistic or historical reasons and addresses the relevant context.

Partly met: Offers a plausible interpretation but leaves important interpretive steps unsupported.

Not met: The recorded interpretation conflicts with the cited text or depends on an unsupported interpretive claim.