EPA §202 authority — can the agency regulate GHGs absent congressional authorization?
EPA Administrator vs. Member of Congress
Score gap: EPA 36 / 40 · Cong. 14 / 40 · match 0.83
Public Policy Debates · v0.1
Score policy debates
on a published rubric.
Online policy fights produce heat without clarity. DebateGrader turns a real debate event into a four-part verdict — premises, rubric, scores, synthesis — and publishes the rubric before the verdict, so observers can challenge the standard, not just the call.
Recently scored
full audit log
The first run is above — the EPA §202 seed. As public submissions come in, they’ll appear here.
How it works
01Ingest & extract
Tag @debategrader on a thread, or paste a URL or transcript at /submit. We normalize speakers, then extract each side’s premises, conclusion, and unstated assumptions — with two model variants in parallel as a check.
02Match a rubric — first
The argument structure is matched to a rubric from our curated library. The rubric is published before the verdict, with its match score, so you can challenge the standard. Below the threshold, we generate a provisional rubric and route it to review.
03Score blind, publish thread
Each speaker is scored against the same rubric independently, blind to the other. The output is a four-part thread — premises, rubric, per-criterion scores with justifications, synthesis — with full provenance to the source and a permanent audit-log entry.
event → transcribe → extract premises → match rubric → score (blind, parallel) → publish thread
│ │
speaker map library + review queue