Featured, Miscellaneous
Share
Tweet
Cite
approximately 48 views since the recommended serving size for pie wasn't disappointing in an existential way.
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:

Send Feedback for this SOAPnote

Your email address will not be published.

More SOAPnotes by this Author: