Run debates online

Debate rooms with a judge built in.

Book a round in any format, seat students, AI sparring partners, or both, and debate it live in a room that runs the real rules. The judge hears every word and hands back a ballot with the quote behind every number, minutes after the gavel.

Free for debaters, and free for programs during our launch period.

WSDC · PF · LD · BP · CNDF · H2H · every format, real rules

01 · The room

The room runs the round.

Nobody chairs, nobody side-times, nobody argues about whose minute it was. The room conducts the round, and it conducts it the same way every time.

FormatsThe format runs itselfSpeech order, clocks, protected minutes, prep time, crossfires: conducted by the room, enforced for everyone.
POIPoints of information, for realRise on a point, offer it, take it or wave it off. Refusals and expiries surface in the room and on the ballot.
AI seatsAI opponents on demandAn empty seat is filled by an AI debater, so a student always has a sparring partner: full rounds or 1v1 drills.
AudioEvery voice on its own trackEach speaker is captured separately. The judge always knows who said what.

02 · The ballot

Every score has a receipt.

A real ballot from a circuit round: every number anchored to the exact words spoken.

CNDF · judged Open the round it came from →

This House believes esports belong in the Olympics

PropositionWinner

37.5/ 50

Opposition

33.5/ 50

The decisive clash

Proposition built a coherent two-pronged case (evolving definition of excellence plus digital inclusivity) and, crucially, closed the round by directly answering all three opposition lines with the Charter's 'harmonious development of humankind' language and the archery/shooting precedent. Opposition never resolved that precedent challenge — it was raised twice in the first opposition speech and sidestepped, and the second opposition speaker's mid-speech concession that esports could 'evolve' Olympic values undercut his own hardline physicality thesis. Opposition's logistics and inequity arguments were substantive but did not compensate for the unresolved definitional clash and internal inconsistency.

Read the full ballot →Speaker-by-speaker scores, findings, and evidence inside.

Talk to us.

Questions about how the judging works, what it costs, or whether it fits your format? Ask. A person reads every message and replies.

Ready to start on your own? See the plans and prices →