Argue with your
opposite.
We match you with someone who sees the world differently, hand you both a motion and start a three-minute clock. An AI judge flags weak arguments and checks every claim against real sources, live.
- Free to play
- Talk or type: your choice
- Camera optional
- Your quiz answers stay private
This house would legalise and regulate recreational cannabis.
Maya
0 pts
Tom
0 pts
An example debate. The figures in it are real. See the sources
3:00
minutes per round
52
motions to argue
650
sourced fact cards
16
kinds of weak argument the judge spots
How it works
Three minutes. Two opposites. One verdict.
Maya · ProLegal shops are beating the dealers. In Canada, over 70% of cannabis is now bought legally.
Fact check · Maya
Correct
Legal sources took about 72% of cannabis spending in 2025, up from 22% in late 2018.
Source · Statistics Canada
01
Map where you stand
02
Meet your opposite
03
Debate. Get judged.
Practise first
Warm up before you face a stranger.
Not ready for a real opponent yet? Quick puzzles train one debating skill at a time, and the bots will argue with you whenever you like.
The bot ladder
AI opponents with styles of their own, from gentle to relentless. Bot rounds are judged like any other debate but don't change your rating.
House bot
Our own sparring partner. Any motion, any side.
- Debated AIAI sparring partner · Easy · 1000
Philosophers
Argue the big questions with great thinkers, from ancient Athens to twentieth-century Paris.
- EpicurusAI philosopher · Beginner · 800
- DiogenesAI philosopher · Medium · 1400
- Mary WollstonecraftAI philosopher · Medium · 1400
- ConfuciusAI philosopher · Medium · 1500
- HypatiaAI philosopher · Medium · 1550
- Marcus AureliusAI philosopher · Medium · 1600
- Simone de BeauvoirAI philosopher · Hard · 1700
- Hannah ArendtAI philosopher · Hard · 1750
- PlatoAI philosopher · Hard · 1800
- AristotleAI philosopher · Hard · 1850
- SocratesAI philosopher · Expert · 1900
Campus firebrands
Fast, combative, modern. Three levels of the same campus debater.
Lil' QuirkAI parody · Beginner · 600- Charlie QuirkAI parody · Medium · 1300
- Charlie BerserkAI parody · Expert · 2000
AI parody inspired by Charlie Kirk's campus debates. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Charlie Kirk's estate or Turning Point USA. Everything it says is written by AI.
The judge
A referee that has read the footnotes.
It listens to every word and scores reasoning, not politics. Both sides get the same standard, and it stays quiet unless it's sure.
- Fallacy callouts
- Straw men, false dilemmas, ad hominems. Sixteen patterns, flagged with the exact quote.
- Live fact checks
- Claims are matched against sourced fact cards and stamped true, false or misleading, whichever side makes them.
- Points as you go
- Strong evidence and sharp rebuttals earn points on a live scoreboard.
- A fair fight
- Personal attacks get flagged, and repeat offenders forfeit.
Judge · Con
Twisting their point
“So you want to scrap all prisons?”
Pro argued for shorter drug sentences, not abolishing prisons.
Judge · Pro
Incorrect
“A UK wealth tax would raise more than £250 billion every year.”
This mixes up two different taxes. The £250 billion figure is for a one-off tax, paid over five years, on wealth above £500,000. The same study found that a yearly tax of 0.17% on wealth above £500,000 would raise about £10 billion a year, before running costs.
Source · Institute for Fiscal Studies (Fiscal Studies) ↗Good answer
Answers the job-loss claim with named evidence.
Examples of the judge's calls. The fact check is fact card WT-04, word for word.
Fact cards sourced from
Matching
No echo chamber. By design.
Ten questions place you on seven axes and in one of eight groups. We find the person furthest from you, then pick the motion you genuinely split on, so every debate has real stakes.
Private by default. Only the matchmaker sees your quiz answers. Opponents and the judge never do.
Skip any motion. Switch a motion off on your stances page and we won't pick it for you.
Delete any time. Withdraw consent and wipe your worldview data from your profile.
Anonymous opponents. You see a display name and, once you're both ready, a rank. Nothing else.
After the buzzer
Every debate ends in a verdict.
Example verdict · Judged on the merits
You won.
Con backed every major claim with sourced figures and answered Pro's strongest point head on. Pro leaned on assertion and lost points for a personal attack.
Pro · Maya
59.0
Con · You
83.5
Coaching tip
“Answer your opponent's strongest point first, then make your own.”
Ranked play
Live now- Novice
- Advocate1300+
- Orator1450+
- Rhetor1600+
- Dialectician1750+
- Laureate1900+
- Grandmaster2100+
Ranks unlock once your rating settles.
Win ranked debates to climb 7 ranks, collect badges on your profile and see where you stand on the leaderboard. Premium game reviews, which break down every line like a chess engine for arguments, are on the way.
On the table
Questions people actually fight about.
52 motions across economy, society, technology, ethics, philosophy and more. New ones added regularly.
Economy
This house would introduce a universal basic income.
Technology
This house would ban social media for under-16s.
Energy
This house would make nuclear power the backbone of net zero.
Immigration
This house would substantially reduce immigration.
Ethics
This house would legalise assisted dying.
Drugs
This house would legalise and regulate recreational cannabis.
FAQ
Good questions.
Who is it for?
Adults (18 and over) who want to argue better. It suits people in debate clubs and societies who want extra practice, and anyone curious about how the other side really thinks.
Is it free?
Yes. Debating, puzzles, the bots, the live judge and your verdict are all free. A premium game review with a line-by-line breakdown is on the way.
Do I need a camera?
No. Talk or type: your choice. Your camera stays off unless you switch it on, and there's a text chat alongside for sources and key points.
Who sees my political views?
Your quiz answers and your worldview map are private. Opponents never see them, the judge never sees them, and you can delete them at any time. The matchmaker uses them only to find someone who disagrees with you. One thing to know: you argue the side you actually hold, so the person you debate can tell which side of that one motion you're on. If there's a motion you'd rather not argue, switch it off on your stances page.
How does the judge decide what's true?
It only calls a claim true or false when it matches a fact card we've sourced from official statistics, peer-reviewed research, government bodies or established fact-checkers. Everything else stays unverified, and it never rules on opinions. On philosophy motions, such as whether free will is an illusion, the cards say what philosophers generally accept instead of calling a view true or false.
How is the winner decided?
At the end, the judge scores both sides on how strong their points were, how well they backed them up, how well they answered the other side and how respectful they were, minus a little for weak arguments. The higher total wins; very close scores are a draw.
What if my opponent is abusive?
Personal attacks are flagged live. Three warnings or one serious violation ends the debate and your opponent forfeits. You can report and block anyone in one tap, or report and leave at once, which ends the round with no result.
Your opposite is waiting.
Three minutes. One motion. A judge that checks the facts. Are you right, or just loud?