Followers
1
AM
Debater Profile
Andre McGriff
@andre123
Reputation 82/100
Joined January 2024
Safety
Block hides their content. Mute stops their notifications to you.
About
No bio yet.
Following
4
Mutuals
0
Profile stats
Activity and reputation at a glance.
Debates created
1
Debates joined
3
Responses posted
2
Evidence submitted
1,049
Debates closed
0
Debates abandoned
0
Reputation score
82
Intellectual impact
2,952
Competitive record
Rankings from AI Judge outcomes, challenges, and tournaments — not pillar reputation.
Record
0W · 0L · 1D
AI Judge avg
50/100
Win streak
0
Best streak
0
Challenge wins
0
Tournament wins
0
Rated debates
1
Badges
No badges yet — win debates, challenges, and tournaments to earn them.
Recent debates
- Was Michael Jordan a better basketball player than LeBron James?
Sports · 6/3/2026
draw
- Can limiting harmful speech ever strengthen a democratic culture?
Culture · 6/3/2026
pending
- Should anonymized public-health datasets always be open by default?
Health · 6/2/2026
pending
- Can nuclear expansion realistically speed up clean energy transitions?
Science · 6/2/2026
pending
Tournament history
No tournament history yet.
Governed by the TheDebator AI Constitution (v1.7.0) — reputation is separate from wins. See docs/AI_CONSTITUTION.md
Recent Debates
TD-8F4A2C
Open DiscussionActiveStalemateExcellentSports
Last activity 12m ago
Was Michael Jordan a better basketball player than LeBron James?
Subjective GOAT comparison — debaters weigh rings, peak dominance, longevity, and all-around impact.
CM
Chris M.
@andre123
48 participants
TD-B5W9X2
Open DiscussionOpenActiveWeakScience
Last activity 23h ago
Can nuclear expansion realistically speed up clean energy transitions?
Conversation balances timeline feasibility, waste concerns, and reliability advantages.
RT
Riley T.
@riley_science
72 participants
TD-9E5G1H
Open DiscussionActiveActiveHealthyCulture
Last activity 3h ago
Can limiting harmful speech ever strengthen a democratic culture?
Arguments branch around legal definitions of harm and risks of political misuse.
CH
Casey H.
@casey_culture
148 participants
TD-6M3K2P
Open DiscussionOpenActiveWeakHealth
Last activity 11h ago
Should anonymized public-health datasets always be open by default?
Debaters test transparency gains against re-identification risks.
PN
Pat N.
@patn_data
55 participants
Debates Created
TD-8F4A2C
Open DiscussionActiveStalemateExcellentSports
Last activity 12m ago
Was Michael Jordan a better basketball player than LeBron James?
Subjective GOAT comparison — debaters weigh rings, peak dominance, longevity, and all-around impact.
CM
Chris M.
@andre123
48 participants
Debates Joined
TD-B5W9X2
Open DiscussionOpenActiveWeakScience
Last activity 23h ago
Can nuclear expansion realistically speed up clean energy transitions?
Conversation balances timeline feasibility, waste concerns, and reliability advantages.
RT
Riley T.
@riley_science
72 participants
TD-9E5G1H
Open DiscussionActiveActiveHealthyCulture
Last activity 3h ago
Can limiting harmful speech ever strengthen a democratic culture?
Arguments branch around legal definitions of harm and risks of political misuse.
CH
Casey H.
@casey_culture
148 participants
TD-6M3K2P
Open DiscussionOpenActiveWeakHealth
Last activity 11h ago
Should anonymized public-health datasets always be open by default?
Debaters test transparency gains against re-identification risks.
PN
Pat N.
@patn_data
55 participants
Recent Activity
Posted a counterpoint in Jordan vs LeBron
12m ago
Saved AI moderation debate
2h ago
Followed @dana_debates
5h ago
Request access approved for gene editing debate
1d ago
Trust signals
Transparency metrics for @andre123 — these do not change reputation score.
Debates completed
1
Debates abandoned
0
Questions answered
1
Questions avoided
0
Evidence accepted
55
Evidence rejected
5
Moderation actions
3
Reports received
0
Reports dismissed
0
Debater Reputation
Strong82/100
Constitution-weighted: reasoning quality, not popularity or AI agreement with your conclusion.
Topic Discipline (22%)
87
Reasoning Strength (22%)
81
Counterpoint Engagement (14%)
84
Evidence Relevance (14%)
79
Steelmanning (10%)
76
Question Accountability (8%)
82
Debate Reliability (5%)
84
Argument Structure (3%)
82
Civility & Consistency (2%)
91
22% Topic Discipline + 22% Reasoning Strength + 14% Counterpoint Engagement + 14% Evidence Relevance + 10% Steelmanning + 8% Question Accountability + 5% Debate Reliability + 3% Argument Structure + 2% Civility & Consistency
View full reputation breakdown →Intellectual Impact
Very High2,952
Separate from reputation — measures intellectual outcomes you create for others, not whether you "won" the debate.
Changed Minds
47
Reframed Thinking
28
Understanding Generated
106
Common Ground Created
22
New Information Shared
58
Questions Resolved
39
Inspect exactly how this reputation was built — pillar trends, history, audit, and anti-gaming signals.
Open Reputation Breakdown →Debate Quality Breakdown
Nine-pillar view from the AI Constitution — inputs to Debater Reputation. Claim Truth is separate (v2).
Topic Discipline
Weight: 22%
87/100
The ability to remain focused on the actual debate premise.
Reasoning Strength
Weight: 22%
81/100
Whether the debater connects Claim → Reasoning → Evidence → Conclusion with clear standards and fair comparisons.
Counterpoint Engagement
Weight: 14%
84/100
Whether the debater addresses opposing claims directly.
Evidence Relevance
Weight: 14%
79/100
Whether evidence actually supports the claim being made.
Steelmanning
Weight: 10%
76/100
Whether the debater fairly represents the strongest opposing argument before critiquing it.
Question Accountability
Weight: 8%
82/100
Whether the debater directly answers important questions that challenge their position — not merely responds.
Debate Reliability
Weight: 5%
84/100
Whether the debater finishes debates, concedes honestly, and avoids evasion exits under unresolved accountability.
Argument Structure
Weight: 3%
82/100
Clear claim, supporting reasoning, logical connection, coherent conclusion.
Civility & Consistency
Weight: 2%
91/100
Respectful language, internal consistency, no personal attacks.
Claim Distribution
How your debates break down by claim type — per the AI Constitution classifier.
42
13% of classified elements
186
57% of classified elements
97
30% of classified elements
Across 325 debates with classified premises and arguments.
Burden of Proof
TheDebator rewards the ability to support claims proportional to the burden required.
Claims Defended Successfully
124
High Burden Claims Supported
18
Burden Challenges Won
31
Evidence Requests Triggered
89
Debate Reliability
TheDebator rewards finishing debates, honest concessions, and intellectual accountability.
Completion Rate
71%
Concessions
17
Abandoned Debates
11
Reliability Score
56/100
Debates Completed
94
Avg Response Time
4.2h
Strategic Exits
8
Evasion Exits
3
Debate Outcomes
TheDebator is not designed to create champions. It is designed to create stronger thinkers. Victory is secondary to intellectual honesty, reasoning quality, burden fulfillment, question accountability, and steelmanning.
TheDebator rewards intellectual rigor more than victory. Winning is an outcome. Reputation is a behavior. The two should never be merged. Wins do not change Debater Reputation.
Debates Started
132
Debates Finished
94
Debates Won
41
Debates Lost
38
Debates Conceded
9
Debates Abandoned
11
Stalemates
22
Mutual Resolutions
18
Question Accountability
TheDebator should make it hard to dodge serious questions while still allowing fair clarification requests.
Direct Questions Asked
186
Direct Questions Answered
142
Questions Avoided
20
Questions Resolved
118
Answer Rate
76%
Avoidance Rate
11%
Partial Answers
24
Accountability Score
65/100
Topic Discipline
Pillar 1 (22% of reputation) — focus on premise, parent claim, and scope.
Average Topic Discipline
87/100
On-Topic Responses
142
Off-Topic Flags
6
Strong Counterpoints
38
Useful Asides
19
Evidence Relevance
91/100
Debates Started
132
Debates Participated In
584
Support Ratio
100%
Evidence Submitted
1,049
Outcome Breakdown
392 intellectual outcomes · feeds Intellectual Impact, not reputation.
Understanding
Learned New Relevant Information
58
Gained Understanding
72
Perspective Challenged
34
Agreement
Changed My Mind
47
Accepted a Stronger Point
39
Found Common Ground
22
Continuing Debate
Need More Evidence
41
Question Still Unanswered
18
Still Counterpoint, But Understand Better
33
Reframed My Thinking
28
Analytics Preview (Mock)
Total Takeaways
392
Learning Events
92
Understanding Events
106
Common Ground Events
22
Mind Changes
47
Evidence Requests
41