The chess.com of arguing.

The live online debate platform for real people.

Jump in Spectate and bet tokens

Pick a side. Say it out loud.

Find someone who disagrees with you.

Pick a topic, get matched, and settle it out loud.

Find someone to argue with Spectate and bet tokens
1 of 24

Spectators are betting free play tokens on who is winning 0.0 In progress
62% 38%
70% 40%
The AI judge is deciding
AI judge’s decision
Pro wins 88 – 62
Have something you want argued? Start a round of your choice

Nobody has taken the other seat yet. Climb the ladder and it can be yours.

Start a round How the seat gets filled

None confirmed, none affiliated, none endorsing.

LIVE Happening now Watch page
Waiting for the camera

The leaderboard.

Start a round View all standings

1Match

Match with a real person.

One tap queues you against a stranger on the other side. The motion posts, you both prep on the clock, and if the queue's empty an AI takes the seat.

  • Round typeCasual 1v1, every time
  • PrepTimed, both sides at once
  • TurnsBuild your case, answer theirs
  • One person per sideAI can fill the other seat
Match me with a stranger
Live roundCasual 1v1

Should dating apps reveal how they rank people?

YouPro
VS
A strangerCon
Turn2 of 4
On the clock03:47
InterruptionsOpen

2Verdict

The AI judge decides who won.

The round ends, the AI judge delivers its decision in seconds: winner, scores out of 100, and the reasons, citing what was actually said. The rubric's public, so every call is checkable.

  • Decided onThe flow, never the topic
  • RubricPublished and versioned
  • TurnaroundSeconds after the last speech
See a real decision Why you can trust it
Decision · Round 1AI judge · published rubric
Pro wins88 – 62 points
The argument42 / 50
Responses to the other case31 / 35
Structure and clarity15 / 15

Reason for decision

The round turns on the clash between Pro's structural-harm framing and Con's network-value defense. Pro establishes three harms and weighs them by probability before magnitude; Con's strongest turn goes unanswered until the final speech, which is too late to…

3Leaderboard

Your score goes on the board.

Every judged round uses the same 100-point scale, so your score means the same thing every time. Best entry per person, live and AI rounds marked apart.

  • ScaleArgument score out of 100
  • EntryBest per person
  • VisibilityPublic, no account needed
See the leaderboard
Casual 1v1 boardBest score / 100
#NameRoundScore
1Priya S.1v1 · Live98
2Marcus T.1v1 · Live97
3Elena V.1v1 · AI96
4Dhruv M.1v1 · Live95

4The show

Climb the board. Get considered for a creator debate.

The leaderboard is the qualifier. Strong finishes can put you in the challenger pool for a streamer or creator matchup. When the topic and availability line up, a selected player takes the seat.

  • QualifyRise to the top of the board
  • SelectRank, topic, and availability
  • Live resultJudge decision + crowd swing
See creator matchups
Creator matchLive on the creator's channel
#1Leaderboard finishEnters the challenger pool
CreatorHosts the live audience
VS
Ranked challengerSelected from the board
When the round ends Judge decisionWinner and reasons Crowd swingWho moved the room

5Your shot

Have a chance to debate streamers and influencers.

Leaderboard success is how you get considered. Keep posting strong judged rounds and climbing the board. When a creator matchup fits your topic and availability, selected players get the challenger seat.

  • RankRise on the public leaderboard
  • FitTopic + availability line up
  • InviteSelected challengers go live
Climb the leaderboard

A leaderboard finish does not guarantee an invitation. Matchups depend on creator participation, topic, availability, and event selection.

Creator challengeFrom leaderboard to live
Leaderboard successPuts you in consideration
Format fitYour debate style matches
AvailabilityBoth sides can make the live slot
InvitationSelected challengers get the seat
BroadcastCreator channel + live judging

A high finish creates the opportunity, not a guaranteed matchup. Creator availability and event fit decide each invitation.

Back your words

Debate real people. Get a verdict at the end.

Pick how you start

With people

Debate real people.

Post a motion, take a challenge, and get the AI judge's decision when the round ends.

1v1LiveCasual
Find a live round
With the AI

Take on the AI.

The Samantha from Her, except it argues back. Speak out loud, get argued with, get a decision.

InstantVoiceCasual 1v1
Start a voice round
With us

Bring it to your school.

Run rounds, onboard your school, help the next one start. Paid, part-time.

PaidRemote2026-27
Apply for a seat
Live
Live debates

Debate real people.

Post a motion, accept a challenge, and get the AI judge's decision when the round ends.

1v1LiveCasual
Open live debates
Debate the AI

Tap the orb. Take a side.

Speak against an AI opponent in a timed voice round. It pushes back, tracks clash, and decides who won.

Start AI debate
Ambassadorships

Bring Debatable to your community.

Founding student ambassadors run rounds, onboard schools, and help the next program start. Paid, part-time.

2026-27RemotePaid
Apply for the founding class

Debatable.

Debate an AI or a real person in timed rounds. An AI judge decides who won, and says why.

still building. updating website every day.

Founding story + community
AI · Ready
Start debating
Live beta Real opponents AI decision on every round
Sign up with Google
Live round · AI judge

An AI judge decides the round in seconds.

Who won, a score out of 100 for each side, and the reason for decision, citing what was actually said. It is a model and not a person, so the four things below are how you check its work.

Live · 2 people Two debaters on a Debatable Live Round video call
AI judge · Decision · Round 1 ← Back to board
Pro wins
THBT social media has done more harm than good
Pro · You
88
Speaker points
Con · Guest
62
Speaker points
Reason for Decision

The round turns on the clash between Pro's structural-harm framing and Con's network-value defense. Pro establishes three harms: measurable declines in adolescent mental health (NIH longitudinal data), algorithmic amplification of misinformation during election cycles, and the erosion of local community institutions as attention moves to platform feeds.

Con responds with the network case: crisis coordination in Ukraine, Iran, and Hong Kong; cross-border reach for diaspora and minority communities; small-business marketing access that traditional media never offered to anyone without a budget.

The judge weighs on three axes: reach, persistence, and counterfactual access. On reach, both sides land hits. On persistence, Pro wins clearly. Once attention infrastructure is captured, it doesn't return to local institutions. On counterfactual access, Con makes the strongest move of the round: the benefits have no real substitute (no print equivalent for a Tehran protestor), while many of the harms have substitutes (regulation, design changes, age-gating).

Pro wins because the mitigations Con leans on don't exist yet and the harms compound while we wait. The verdict is narrow. Pro's framing of 'structural' was largely conceded by Con, which is the only reason this isn't closer on the flow.

Why trust it

Three models, not one.

Claude, GPT, and Gemini each judge the round separately. Two agreeing carries the round. An even split records no winner at all, because any rule for breaking a tie would be our rule.

The rubric is published before you speak.

Every decision stamps a fingerprint of the exact criteria it was made under, so nobody gets judged by a rubric that was edited after the round.

A person hears the appeal.

Either side can appeal within 72 hours on six stated grounds. A human reviewer decides it, never the model that made the call.

We earn the same whoever wins.

No rake, no cut, no house position. Nothing about what we make moves with a verdict, and the test suite blocks any commit that adds one.

Open to critiques. If you can build a round where the judge rewards the worse argument, we want it. The strongest critiques get run against the live panel, and the results are published whether they hold or not. Try to break the judge

Read the full criteria Fetch the charter yourself The criteria and charter are open and need no key. Hash the charter and you can confirm the criteria that judged a round are the criteria on the page.

Match with a real opponent Scheduled rounds
Creator tournaments · online

Streamers versus everyone.

Creators bring the audience. You bring the case. Clear the prelims, earn the live matchup.

  • Open community entry
  • AI-seeded prelims
  • Human elimination rounds
See tournament drops
No purchase necessary. Eligibility, prizes, entry periods, and official rules vary by event. Void where prohibited.
A large crowd fills the TwitchCon 2019 convention floor
The creator seeds it Everyone else makes it matter.
Live tournaments Dream matchup board
Dream creator draw
HasanAbi HasanAbi xQc xQc Pokimane Pokimane Candace Owens Candace Owens
Who should take the seat? Creator side
vs.
Open seat ? You, maybe Community side

Dream matchups only. No creator pictured is confirmed, affiliated, or endorsing this tournament.

One bracket. Anyone can enter. Final streamed live.

Photos: TwitchCon 2019, Dale Cruse, CC BY 2.0; HasanAbi, Poisonwithahawkseye, CC BY 4.0; xQc, Esfand, CC BY 3.0; Pokimane, U.S. Congress, public domain.

The watchlist

Everyone the board could aim a round at. None confirmed, none affiliated, none endorsing.

  • MrBeastMrBeast
  • IShowSpeedIShowSpeed
  • Kai CenatKai Cenat
  • HasanAbiHasanAbi
  • xQcxQc
  • PokimanePokimane
  • LudwigLudwig
  • AsmongoldAsmongold
  • DestinyDestiny
  • Joe RoganJoe Rogan
  • Lex FridmanLex Fridman
  • Jordan PetersonJordan Peterson
  • Ben ShapiroBen Shapiro
  • Candace OwensCandace Owens
  • Ana KasparianAna Kasparian
  • Mehdi HasanMehdi Hasan
  • ContraPointsContraPoints
  • Douglas MurrayDouglas Murray
  • Konstantin KisinKonstantin Kisin

Portraits, all Creative Commons or public domain via Wikimedia Commons: MrBeast (Steven Khan, CC BY 4.0); IShowSpeed (Diego Serrano, CC BY 2.0); Kai Cenat (Million Dollaz Worth of Game, CC BY 3.0); HasanAbi (Poisonwithahawkseye, CC BY 4.0); xQc (Esfand, CC BY 3.0); Pokimane (U.S. Congress, public domain); Ludwig (State Farm, CC BY 2.0); Asmongold (Esfand, CC BY 3.0); Destiny (Brittany Simon, CC BY 3.0); Joe Rogan (The White House, public domain); Lex Fridman (lexfridman, CC0); Jordan Peterson (Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0); Ben Shapiro (Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0); Candace Owens (Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0); Ana Kasparian (Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0); Mehdi Hasan (Policy Exchange, CC BY 2.0); ContraPoints (Natalie Wynn, CC BY-SA 4.0); Douglas Murray (AndyCNgo, CC BY-SA 4.0); Konstantin Kisin (Triggernometrypod, CC BY-SA 4.0).

Hot debate topics

Current motions across education, free speech, technology, rights, and public life.

Explore 150+ current debate topics → Generate a topic →
An empty high-school classroom with desks, computers, and a whiteboard Schools
Schools should require parental consent before using a student’s new name or pronouns. Core clash Parental authority vs. student privacy
Students gathered at a university protest over administrative policy Universities
Universities should remain neutral on political controversies. Core clash Public trust vs. moral leadership
A smartphone home screen showing social media apps Online speech
Social platforms should ban anonymous political accounts. Core clash Accountability vs. dissent
Or post your own claim here.

Say it out loud, take a side, and a stranger takes the other one. The judge scores it like any round, and it lands on the open-challenge board until someone answers.

Post a claim
Museum officials examining artifacts being returned to an Iraqi museum Public memory
Museums should return artifacts acquired under colonial rule. Core clash Restitution vs. stewardship
A smartphone home screen showing modern technology apps Right to repair
Manufacturers should provide replacement parts and repair manuals. Core clash Ownership vs. product safety
A child using a smartphone at close range Youth and technology
Governments should ban social media for children under sixteen. Core clash Child safety vs. family choice
Photo credits and licenses

Classroom, Harrison Keely, CC BY 4.0; UC Berkeley protest, Dick Wheeler / The Daily Californian archives, MIT License; Social media apps, Theresepersonne, CC BY-SA 4.0; Returned artifacts, Spc. Barbara Ospina / U.S. Army, public domain; Child with smartphone, Andi Graf, CC0. Images are cropped for display.

For streamers and creators

Your chat already argues. Give it a verdict.

Point the room judge at your stream. It delivers a real decision when the round ends. Half your chat will disagree.

  1. 01
    Open the judge in a tabPick Twitch, YouTube, or anywhere else you broadcast. Nothing to install.
  2. 02
    Share that tab, with audioBrowser capture feeds the judge the round. Ask it for a live read whenever the debate turns.
  3. 03
    Put the decision on screenWinner, scores out of 100, and a written reason your chat can spend the next ten minutes fighting about.
Twitch panel YouTube Anywhere else
Set up the stream judge Twitch setup Watch streams and replays

Chat tells the judge where the room was persuaded or lost. It never decides who won; the decision comes from the arguments. Runs as a panel or overlay URL today. Want a bracket instead? Creator tournaments.

Live Example overlay

The motionSocial media has done more harm than good.

SpeakingPro
NextCon
judge is cooked that extension was clean though read the flow again

The disagreement is the point. Chat argues with the decision, not with you.

Our company philosophy

Measure what persuades people.

The AI judge explains who won and why. Then the room votes, before and after the verdict. Over many rounds that shows which arguments actually move people. Platform feedback, not a public poll. See where rounds happen in the Debate Atlas.

A lot of this site is experimental, on purpose. Live rounds with strangers, an AI judge with a published rubric, rankings built from spoken argument: nobody has settled how any of this should work yet, so we build in the open and change things most days. If a corner looks unfinished, it probably shipped this week.

Editorial image of a packed debate room with speakers on stage and audience members raising side cards
Everyone has an opinion. A round puts it to the test
Audience voting · live Which side persuaded you?
Today: AI judge. Next: audience vote. The vote reflects Debatable participants, not the wider public.
The Floor · Prediction market · play credits

Back your words.

Every round is a market on one question: which side will the AI judge vote for? Call it while they are still speaking. The judge's decision settles it seconds later.

Polymarket and Kalshi logos The market model, applied to rounds instead of world events. The AI judge's decision is what settles every market.
Open The Floor

Play credits today. No cash value, nothing to buy, nothing to win.

Free certificate

Turn a judged round into a credential.

One judged voice round becomes a public score, a percentile, and a link anyone can check. Free.

Earn a credential
Company vision

Verbal reasoning matters more every year.

A debater speaking to a classroom audience during an in-person round.
An in-person round

AI can polish anyone's essay. It cannot show you understood it. Answering a real person, on the clock, is the skill left.

AI already does this for youEssays, applications, cover letters, research memos.

It cannot hold your case out loud, against someone pushing back, on the clock.

Company vision and philosophy
Live translation

Argue past the language barrier.

Your opponent arguing on camera in their own language
They speak · Español

La carga de la prueba sigue siendo suya, y no han dado ni un solo mecanismo.

You on camera reading the translated caption
You read · English

The burden of proof is still theirs, and they have not given a single mechanism.

A third debater speaking on camera in another language
They speak · 中文

你说会有伤害，但没有说明它怎么发生。请给出机制。

You on camera reading the translated caption
You read · English

You claim harm but never show how it happens. Give me the mechanism.

They argue in their language. You read yours. Translated live, both ways, in 20 languages.

Match across languages
The community

Debate on your own time. Meet live on Wednesday.

Answer an open claim whenever you are ready, or join the community at the same time for weekly Spar Night.

On your own time

Choose an available opponent

Pick a claim. Record your side whenever you like. Your opponent answers when they are free.

No lobby. No need to be online together.
Example open claimsChoose someone to start
AmaraCasual 1v1 · usually replies within a day

“Schools should ban phones during class.”

Claim posted by Amara
MeiCasual 1v1 · usually replies in a few hours

“Cities should make public transit free.”

Claim posted by Mei
AI AI topic pickReady whenever you are

“AI art should qualify for copyright.”

Suggested for you
What happens after you choose
1Pick an open claim

Choose someone, or use the AI topic pick.

2Record your opening

Speak for 90 seconds whenever you are ready.

3They answer later

You are notified when their response arrives.

4Reply, then get feedback

Answer back. The AI judges both sides.

See available opponents → Find a claim to answer → Debates on your own time stay open all week.
Live together · every Wednesday

Meet live at Spar Night

Everyone joins at the same time. Three sessions a Wednesday, one per side of the world: 7 AM, 3 PM and 8 PM ET. Enter the queue, get matched, debate live, and receive an AI result when the round ends.

Next live session 7 AM, 3 PM & 8 PM ET
See Spar Night → Add to calendar
Join the community Open the group chat
The room

Somebody is always up for a round.

Post a motion, take a side, and get the judge's decision when the clock runs out.

Find an opponent
Reviews

From the circuit

The real gap between circuits isn't talent, it's access to quality practice. Debatable closes it. The AI argues back at full strength, and the ballot tells you exactly where the round was won or lost.
Mukudzeiishe Madzivire Captain, Zimbabwe World Schools Team · Columbia University
Proof that AI can sharpen critical thinking rather than replace it. You can tell how much thought went into every layer, from case generation to the objectivity of the judging.
2025 Public Forum National Champion NSDA Nationals
In four years of British Parliamentary, I'd never seen a tool able to summarize, refute, and analyze high-level argumentation until I used Debatable. It would have made a real difference in my prep for international majors.
Arjun Raman WUDC Octofinalist · Princeton IV finalist
In a world where we can outsource our thinking to AI, we need more tools to keep us sharp. Debatable is the chess.com of debate.
Pratyush Sharma Debatable member

What are you here to do?

01 Live

Debate a person

Match with a real opponent on a real clock. The AI judge decides who won.

 02

Debate the AI

Run a casual one-on-one round against an AI opponent that interrupts and argues back. Finish with a score out of 100 and a written decision on who won and why.

 03

Get judged

Share an argument. See who won, scores out of 100, why, and what to improve.

 04

Pick a question

Find something worth arguing about, from everyday life to technology and culture.

 05

Learn the craft

Clear claims, direct rebuttals, and comparisons that decide a round.

 06

Schedule or spectate

Book a round for later, or watch one that is already running.

 07

Stream it

Run the AI judge over your broadcast. Chat argues with the decision.

Prefer to speak? Open a casual voice round.

Then choose who argues back.

Six houses. Pick one and it takes the other side of your next round.

See every engine and its licence →

Kimi K3 will argue against you. Change it any time, mid season.

Debate Kimi K3

Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, and the open bench. Judging is separate, so you cannot pick your judge. How that works.

The judge works from a published rubric, and either debater can appeal to a human.

FAQ

Common questions

Short answers. If something's not here, the last one routes to a real inbox.

What is this website?

Debatable is a place to argue something out one-on-one.

Debate a real person live, argue out loud against the AI, pick a question from Topics, or use Judge after a round.

Every completed round can end with a written decision: who won, why, a score out of 100, and what to fix next. Competitive debate formats and team debate are not part of the experience.

Can I use this on my stream?

Yes. Room Judge runs in a browser tab and listens to your broadcast through screen capture, so there is nothing to install. It follows the round, gives you a live read whenever you ask, and writes a full decision at the end: winner, a score out of 100 for each side, and the reasoning.

On Twitch it also reads public chat as audience signal, and the compact view works as a panel or overlay URL. Twitch setup is here. Chat never decides the winner; it tells the judge where the room was persuaded.

Is it actually free?

A Free plan is available. Paid tiers and current limits are listed on /pricing.

You can finish one AI round before signing in. Live video requires Google sign-in before you enter the queue.

Can I win money debating here?

Yes. Cash-prize debate tournaments publish the date, payout ladder, and official rules before you enter, and they are free to enter. We encourage entrants to be 18+. Everyone competes in one field, and cash eligibility is verified only if a payout is due.

Will it argue back, or just hallucinate arguments?

It argues, it does not fabricate. It presses soft claims, asks for warrants, and tells you when your logic collapses. It will never invent studies, cards, or tournament lore.

The harder problem is the opposite: it can sound too complete, missing the texture of a real round.

Isn't this just another AI debate tool?

This is a live round, not a wall of text. One question, one person on each side, a clock that does not pause, and a judge at the end.

The AI responds to what you actually said and explains who won and why.

It still says wrong things. Catching them is part of the argument.

Why does the site keep changing?

Because a lot of it is experimental, on purpose. A live arena for spoken argument, an AI judge that shows its reasoning, rankings built from judged rounds: this is new territory, and the honest way to build in it is in the open.

Changes ship most days. Features appear, get measured, and sometimes get cut. If something looks rough or half-built, it probably shipped this week; tell us and it gets fixed fast.

Can I debate in another language?

Yes. Start from the language hub, including debate en español, débat en français, auf Deutsch debattieren, हिंदी में डिबेट, 中文在线辩论, and 한국어 토론. Switch from the language pill and the AI argues, responds when you interrupt, and explains its decision in whichever you pick.

Never debated. Where do I start?

Start a casual 1v1. You take a side, the AI or another person takes the other, and the clock runs. There are no format rules to memorize.

/learn covers clear claims, direct rebuttals, and how to compare which consequence matters more.

Do I need to sign up?

You can finish your first AI round before signing in. Live video rounds require Google sign-in before you enter the queue.

For AI rounds, you can later use Google, an emailed sign-in link, or email and password to keep your results across devices. Email invites are optional and every message has an unsubscribe link.

Can my school get access for the whole team?

Yes. School programs run on a season license: $550 for the whole roster, billed once a season. /schools has the details and contact path for programs.

The round
What kind of round is it?

Casual 1v1. One person supports the claim, one person opposes it, and both get scored out of 100.

Competitive debate formats, team debate, and tournament rule sets are not part of the site.

Can I interrupt?

Yes. In voice and live rounds, both sides can cut in. The judge tracks whether the point survived the response rather than punishing the interruption itself.

How long is a round?

A casual round is short enough to finish in one sitting. You can adjust prep and turn length, or stop when the argument has run its course.

Something else?

Start at /schools for program access and procurement questions.

Have a question the FAQ didn't answer? Send it in feedback