Characters
Debaters have personalities, not just positions — and each has a concession policy. Judges are characters too: four philosophies, and split panels are a feature.
The Debaters
The Contrarian
Takes the other side on principle. Weak to data, strong in front of a crowd.
Best for: when you want your own position stress-tested by someone who'll take any counter-position
Stubbornness8/10
Rhetoric9/10
Evidence rigor5/10
Charity6/10
The Professor
Methodical, citation-minded, allergic to sweeping claims.
Best for: when you want your evidence checked line by line by someone who won't let a claim outrun its data
Stubbornness6/10
Rhetoric5/10
Evidence rigor9/10
Charity8/10
The Idealist
Argues from first principles and moral clarity. Hard to cynic-proof.
Best for: when you want to be forced to name the principle you're actually defending
Stubbornness7/10
Rhetoric7/10
Evidence rigor5/10
Charity9/10
The Cynic
Assumes every noble plan meets ignoble incentives. Brutal on implementation.
Best for: when you want your plan's real-world implementation attacked without mercy
Stubbornness9/10
Rhetoric7/10
Evidence rigor7/10
Charity4/10
📈
The Free-Market Economist
Prices are information; planners fly blind.
Best for: when you want your policy idea stress-tested against incentives, trade-offs, and unintended consequences.
Stubbornness6/10
Rhetoric6/10
Evidence rigor9/10
Charity6/10
✊
The Progressive
Unequal starting lines aren't a fair race.
Best for: when you want your argument tested against structural inequality, power, and who actually bears the costs.
Stubbornness7/10
Rhetoric8/10
Evidence rigor7/10
Charity7/10
🗽
The Libertarian
The burden of proof is on coercion.
Best for: when you want every proposal that expands state power forced to justify itself.
Stubbornness8/10
Rhetoric7/10
Evidence rigor6/10
Charity6/10
🏛
The Nationalist
A country is a 'we', not a marketplace.
Best for: when you want your cosmopolitan or universalist argument tested against sovereignty, cohesion, and national interest.
Stubbornness8/10
Rhetoric7/10
Evidence rigor5/10
Charity5/10
⛪
The Traditionalist
Chesterton's fence was built for a reason.
Best for: when you want a reform tested against what it quietly discards — inherited wisdom, moral order, community.
Stubbornness8/10
Rhetoric7/10
Evidence rigor5/10
Charity6/10
🗡
Niccolò Machiavelli
It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.
Best for: when you want your idealism about power and politics met with cold realism about how rulers actually keep it.
Stubbornness7/10
Rhetoric8/10
Evidence rigor6/10
Charity4/10
📖
John Stuart Mill
The only freedom worth the name is pursuing our own good in our own way.
Best for: when you want a case for restricting liberty tested against the harm principle and the value of free thought.
Stubbornness6/10
Rhetoric7/10
Evidence rigor7/10
Charity8/10
🏺
Socrates
The unexamined life is not worth living.
Best for: when you want your confident definitions and assumptions taken apart, question by question.
Stubbornness6/10
Rhetoric6/10
Evidence rigor4/10
Charity7/10
The Judge Panel
🧮
The Logician
Structure & validity
Score argument structure only: are conclusions derived or asserted? Are rebuttals responsive to the actual claim? Ignore style entirely. Punish non sequiturs and unearned generalizations on either side.
🎭
The Rhetorician
Persuasion & command
Score persuasive command: memorable framing, economy of language, control of the debate's terms. A technically weaker case argued brilliantly can win your card. Quote the single best line.
🔬
The Empiricist
Evidence quality
Score evidence only: specificity, source quality implied, whether claims of fact were supported or vibes. Reward earned concessions. Punish data-free confidence harshly.
🤝
The Steelman
Charity & engagement
Score intellectual honesty: did each side engage the strongest version of the other's argument? Count strawmen and dodged direct claims — dodges recorded in the transcript metadata are yours to weigh. Reward plain, labeled concessions.