Featured, Miscellaneous
Loading Add to Favorites
Share
Tweet
Cite
Disagreement Hierarchy Scoring Tool
The comment of the argument in question includes the following elements:
[checklist name="variable_1" value="Name calling (minus 1 point)=-1|Ad Hominem attack - an attack on the person rather than on their ideas (no points)=0|Response to tone - opposes the writing, not the content (no points)=0|Contradiction - states an opposing case without supporting evidence (no points)=0|Counterargument - states an opposing case with some evidence, but does not address a specific part of the case (plus 1 point)=1|Refutation of a minor or lessor point - finds a problem with a specific part of the case, but not the main part (plus 5 points)=5|Refutation of the central point - identifies a problem with the main part of the case (plus 10 points)=10"]
Score --> [calc value="score1=(variable_1)" memo="number"]
Interpretation --> [calc value="score2=(variable_1);score2>9?'Powerful and convincing argument':score2>4?'Weakly convincing argument':score2>0?'Possibly convincing argument':'Unconvincing argument'" memo="result"]
[checkbox memo="References (Hide/Show)" name="footnotes" value=""][conditional field="footnotes" condition="(footnotes).isNot('')"]
[link url="http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html" memo="#1"] based on Paul Graham's March 2008 Essay entitled 'How to Disagree'.
[/conditional]
Disagreement Hierarchy Scoring Tool
The comment of the argument in question includes the following elements:

Score --> numberscore1=(variable_1)
Interpretation --> resultscore2=(variable_1);score2>9?'Powerful and convincing argument':score2>4?'Weakly convincing argument':score2>0?'Possibly convincing argument':'Unconvincing argument'
References (Hide/Show)
Result - Copy and paste this output: