You forgot sperm morphology, although they didn't look at that in this paper. What they did look as part of semen quality were sperm concentration, motility and progressive motility. These are all characteristics of the sperm, and they use "sperm quality" interchangeably with "semen quality". So it's disingenuous of you to split hairs over the difference between sperm and semen. The paper concludes that sperm DNA damage is correlated with low visible sperm quality, contrary to Cato's uninformed claim that you are attempting to argue for.
You forgot sperm morphology, although they didn't look at that in this paper. What they did look as part of semen quality were sperm concentration, motility and progressive motility. These are all characteristics of the sperm, and they use "sperm quality" interchangeably with "semen quality". So it's disingenuous of you to split hairs over the difference between sperm and semen. The paper concludes that sperm DNA damage is correlated with low visible sperm quality, contrary to Cato's uninformed claim that you are attempting to argue for.