From policies to play-ground matches, from politics to performance of a player, a myriad number of debates happen across the globe. Ideal debates are a platform to put forward once point and to understand what exactly makes opponent think the other way. Sometime this debate lead us to enlightenment in the topic when the opponent identifies what our point lacked. in other times it gives an opportunity to help the other guy to get better picture of the topic. however, Not all debates happen with the sole intention of getting better clarity of the topic and in those scenarios, trying to convince the opponent will just be futile. The claim made by the prompt to test an argument by it's ability to convince opponent has a very narrow perspective and ignores other factors to judge an argument and the reason mentioned holds true only for the ideal debates.
In the Ideal debates mentioned above, It makes a sense to validate an argument by the way it can convince the opponent. in this rare scenario, the opponent will raise up with the valid questions identifying loopholes in the plaintiff's argument. Thus it provides an opportunity to the former to identify what his argument lacks and provide proper answers. In some cases the proppser of argument might even concede understanding his/her mistakes. In a world with only such debates, yes! judging an argument by the way it could convince opponent makes sense.
However, Not all debates are ideal as mentioned above. For instance, the opponent might be arguing just to defeat the opponent even when he knows that he is points are not valid. Back when we don't had man made satellites yet, Gellileo argued earth is mostly a sphere like body. Many religious debaters argued against it merely based on lack of such knowledge in religious text books. Now consider a debate were Gellileo is explaining why he thinks earth is round to 100's of religious guys who are not willing to listen at all. These people might just shout "how can you claim something that is not written in scriptures?" In such scenarios we can't judge his argument merely based on his ability to convince someone in the debate who didn't care to listen to scientific facts but to blindly oppose.
In conclusion, In healthier debates of scholars were everyone are willing to understand the things better, it makes sense to judge an argument by it's effectiveness in solving the doubts of others. However, In other debates were people are not listening to the argument at all, merely because it doesn't align with their view, we should be analyzing the argument in a more sensible manner by analyzing the debater point of view.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 366, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...onent identifies what our point lacked. in other times it gives an opportunity to ...
^^
Line 1, column 463, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: However
...guy to get better picture of the topic. however, Not all debates happen with the sole i...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 121, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...y the way it can convince the opponent. in this rare scenario, the opponent will r...
^^
Line 3, column 225, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'plaintiffs'' or 'plaintiff's'?
Suggestion: plaintiffs'; plaintiff's
... questions identifying loopholes in the plaintiffs argument. Thus it provides an opportuni...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...g loopholes in the plaintiffs argument. Thus it provides an opportunity to the forme...
^^^^
Line 3, column 486, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Judging
...In a world with only such debates, yes! judging an argument by the way it could convinc...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 193, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e is points are not valid. Back when we dont had man made satellites yet, Gellileo a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 654, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... scriptures?' In such scenarios we cant judge his argument merely based on his ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 744, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...y to convince someone in the debate who didnt care to listen to scientific facts but ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 296, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... the argument at all, merely because it doesnt align with their view, we should be ana...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, thus, for instance, in conclusion, by the way, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2209.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 453.0 442.535393258 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87637969095 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59979303578 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501103752759 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 710.1 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.076376081 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.263157895 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8421052632 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.31578947368 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 7.80617977528 128% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205627840353 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674916960463 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0749183503553 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139247640264 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0555508624985 0.0667264976115 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.