Not every debate fits neatly into our evaluation framework. Here's how we handle the tricky cases.
The Tie Problem
What happens when arguments are genuinely equal in quality? Our system handles this by: 1. Identifying tie scenarios explicitly 2. Looking at secondary factors (clarity, engagement) 3. If still tied, declaring an honest tie rather than forcing a winner
Logical Fallacies
We've trained our judge to recognize common fallacies: - Ad hominem attacks - Strawman arguments - False dichotomies - Appeal to authority without substance
When detected, these reduce the score for the offending argument rather than automatically disqualifying it.
Off-Topic Arguments
Sometimes debaters go off-topic. Our judge evaluates: - How far off-topic did they go? - Did the tangent serve the main argument? - Did the opponent call it out?
Handling Toxicity
We have a separate toxicity filter that flags truly inappropriate content. The debate judge itself focuses on argument quality, not content moderation.