But still, this seems like a big leap to me. I follow what he's saying but not necessarily convinced of this opinion.

This could be a rhetorical strategy. Made me think.

Up to this point he has shown some evidence both ways, now he is introducing back the main point.

He makes his opinion on this clear here, so does that count as a bias that he has memories with his daughter there?

His evidence here is secondary but I think it's a good thing he put it in. The first source is a book which I'm not sure how many people are going to go through and fact check that.

Another good point that could use some scholarly articles. We have gotten to where we are as humans because we are constantly improving and adapting to change. The internet is another adaptation we have to learn to use successfully. There must be some good articles on this...

Good sub-claim but maybe could add evidence. Scholarly research on the future direction of the internet and more details on how much progress we really are making. It's a logical argument but it would be stronger with evidence. Also I just really like this paragraph. What I liked best about this article is it made me feel so positive about the internet. It made me see the good that is happening and made me feel hopeful that this good will only grow as the internet itself does.

Hm. In that last part I don't know if I saw his argument for the internet generating empathy or if it was more elaborating on the connections that are formed. Can we really say that is what is happening here in these cases? That empathy is being generated, or is there something else going on that is resulting in people showing so much support (emotionally, financially, whatever) to people in other places?

---Rereading this, this comment seems cold. Maybe someone will understand what I'm trying to say. I just feel like that's a strong thing to say, that the internet is generating empathy. I don't know...

sub-claim?

I don't really understand what he's saying here. Is he saying these people are friends now because of the internet? Or that they wouldn't be if it weren't for the internet.

Here he uses evidence to back up his point about the internet reaching so many people. He is using current events which I don't think would work as a primary source but are effective since they tie to real life events.

Could this be a sub-claim? Serves as the connection between people of developing worlds to people of developed worlds, even if not directly.

sub-claim

I would maybe call the statistics he uses in this paragraph evidence. He is using it to show just how many people can be reached through the internet compared to the population of the world.

Rhetorical strategy-Something that seems obvious but doesn't occur to people until it's thrown back at them in a question