Statutory interpretation under current SCOTUS precedent
For arguments about what a statute requires, given controlling cases.
Active in matcher · view detail
Rubric Library
The standards we score against.
Every run uses one rubric, published before its scores. Each rubric is scoped to a domain and tagged with the argument forms it evaluates. The thirteen rubrics below are the active library — the matcher picks one for every submission, and you can read each one’s criteria below.
Empirical scientific claim under current evidence
For arguments asserting a causal or correlational scientific finding.
Active in matcher · view detail
Policy tradeoff under stated values
For arguments about whether a policy’s benefits exceed its costs given a value hierarchy.
Active in matcher · view detail
Historical analogy under structural fit
For arguments that draw a present conclusion from a past episode.
Active in matcher · view detail
Constitutional structural argument
For arguments about separation of powers, federalism, and constitutional design.
Active in matcher · view detail
Moral philosophy under stated ethical framework
For arguments turning on ethical principles — autonomy, harm, virtue, justice — rather than legal or empirical claims.
Active in matcher · view detail
Economic reasoning under empirical evidence
For arguments deploying economic analysis — markets, incentives, distribution — to support a conclusion.
Active in matcher · view detail
Democratic legitimacy under procedural and substantive norms
For arguments about whether a decision-making process or outcome can claim democratic legitimacy.
Active in matcher · view detail
Novel technology risk under uncertainty
For arguments about the risk profile of a novel technology where empirical history is limited.
Active in matcher · view detail
Media platform responsibility under speech and harm frameworks
For arguments about whether a media platform should bear responsibility for content.
Active in matcher · view detail
Theological reasoning within or across traditions
For arguments about religious doctrine, divine attributes, theodicy, salvation, or eschatology.
Active in matcher · view detail
Scriptural interpretation under text, tradition, and method
For arguments specifically about what a sacred text means or requires — tradition-agnostic.
Active in matcher · view detail
Doctrinal dispute between traditions sharing source material
For inter-tradition disputes — e.g. LDS vs. Nicene, Sunni vs. Shia, Reform vs. Orthodox — that turn on shared text rather than tradition pedigree.
Active in matcher · view detail
The matching engine assigns one of these thirteen rubrics to each submitted debate. If none clears the
0.75 match threshold, the run is flagged provisional and held for human review.
Anyone can propose a new rubric — that workflow ships in a later release.