← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Relevance, Reasoning and Clarity. Average 72 / 100
Signal
42 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Reasoning
50 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Respect
–
Not scored Viewing ↓
Clarity
95 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Positioning 55% Reasoning 33% Procedure 2% The ask 10%
Structure · 9 steps
Claims · 0
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 17 words I rise in strong support of this bill. This is not about crime. It is about control. Positioning Reasoning · 34 words Once you can flag a purchase, any purchase, you can flag a person. Once you can flag a person, you can control what they buy, what banks they use, Logical leap and even what they believe. Logical leap Positioning · 21 words It is wrong. It is un-American. This bill is not just about guns. It is about the precedent that was set. Positioning Hidden agency Reasoning · 26 words If we allow financial institutions to become the surveillance arm of one party’s political agenda today, there will be no limit to what gets flagged tomorrow. Logical leap Logical leap Procedure · 4 words Let me be clear: Procedure Positioning · 61 words Buying a firearm is not extremism; buying a Bible is not extremism; reading the news you choose and want to read is not extremism; exercising a constitutional right is not extremism. The extreme position is using America’s banks to build a permanent list to track who people worship, what they read, and what constitutional rights they happen to choose to exercise. Positioning Mr. Speaker, The ask · 18 words I urge my colleagues to vote for privacy, freedom, and the Constitution of the United States of America.
At a glance
Lost points for Positioning ×13 Logical leap ×4 Hidden agency Procedure Little substance Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 42
14 of 19 deductions are Signal
Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “I rise in strong support of this bill.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “This is not about crime.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “It is about control.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “It is wrong.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “It is un-American.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “This bill is not just about guns.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “It is about the precedent that was set.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “Let me be clear:” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “Buying a firearm is not extremism;” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “buying a Bible is not extremism;” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “reading the news you choose and want to read is not extremism;” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “exercising a constitutional right is not extremism.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “The extreme position is using America’s banks to build a permanent list to track who people worship, what they read,” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “and what constitutional rights they happen to choose to exercise.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Relevance · 100
0 of 19 deductions are Relevance
Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the bill under debate.
Nothing lost points.
Reasoning · 50
4 of 19 deductions are Reasoning
Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “Once you can flag a person, you can control what they buy, what banks they use,” The claim rests on the assumption that flagging a purchase inevitably leads to controlling a person’s bank use, a consequence asserted rather than shown.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “and even what they believe.” The chain from flagging a purchase to controlling what a person believes asserts a far-reaching consequence from a first step without support.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “If we allow financial institutions to become the surveillance arm of one party’s political agenda today, there will be no limit to what gets flagged tomorrow.” The clause equates a merchant code with building a permanent tracking list serving a political agenda, extending the premise well beyond what a code does.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “If we allow financial institutions to become the surveillance arm of one party’s political agenda today, there will be no limit to what gets flagged tomorrow.” The privacy rationale leans on the claim that allowing these codes means unlimited future flagging, a slippery-slope inference the statement does not establish.
Conclusions found · 4
Conclusion “It is wrong.”
Because “Once you can flag a purchase, any purchase, you can flag a person.”
“Once you can flag a person, you can control what they buy, what banks they use,”
“and even what they believe.”
Reason flawed The chain from flagging a purchase to controlling what a person believes asserts a far-reaching consequence from a first step without support.
Conclusion “It is un-American.”
Because “Once you can flag a purchase, any purchase, you can flag a person.”
“Once you can flag a person, you can control what they buy, what banks they use,”
Reason flawed The claim rests on the assumption that flagging a purchase inevitably leads to controlling a person’s bank use, a consequence asserted rather than shown.
Conclusion “The extreme position is using America’s banks to build a permanent list to track who people worship, what they read,”
Because “If we allow financial institutions to become the surveillance arm of one party’s political agenda today, there will be no limit to what gets flagged tomorrow.”
Reason flawed The clause equates a merchant code with building a permanent tracking list serving a political agenda, extending the premise well beyond what a code does.
Conclusion “I urge my colleagues to vote for privacy, freedom,”
Because “This is not about crime.”
“This bill is not just about guns.”
“If we allow financial institutions to become the surveillance arm of one party’s political agenda today, there will be no limit to what gets flagged tomorrow.”
Reason flawed The privacy rationale leans on the claim that allowing these codes means unlimited future flagging, a slippery-slope inference the statement does not establish.
Respect · no score
Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.
Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.
Clarity · 95
1 of 19 deductions are Clarity
Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.
Hidden agency Wording that hides who did something, or who will. What the tags mean → “the precedent that was set” The passive names no actor and no event, leaving it unclear who allegedly set the precedent or when.
Claims · 0
This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.
No checkable claims.
