Shadow Judge
Talk to us

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.

Read a real ballot

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

A real ballot · judged

Gene editing of human embryos should be permitted for disease prevention

PropositionWinner30 / 40
Opposition28 / 40
“The risk of inaction in the face of suffering is not ethically superior. It is a moral failure”
Read the full ballot ↓

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.

Head-to-Head · judged Open the round it came from →

Gene editing of human embryos should be permitted for disease prevention

PropositionWinner

30/ 40

Opposition

28/ 40

The decisive clash

Proposition built a tightly structured three-pillar case (scientific transformation, ethical duty, manageable safety), used its two POIs to press Opposition on the cost of inaction, and its rebuttal directly weighed the ethics clash with a clear crystallizing line about inaction being a moral failure. Opposition's constructive was substantive (eugenics history, regulatory lag, slippery slope) and its rebuttal was well-organized point-by-point engagement, but its in-speech handling of Proposition's POIs was evasive rather than directly answering the suffering-prevention argument, costing it Method and leaving the central ethical clash slightly better held by Proposition by the end.

The quote behind the number
“The risk of inaction in the face of suffering is not ethically superior. It is a moral failure”

weighing

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 →