Skip to content
Arguers
Sign in

Settle the argument.

Disagree with someone? Take your side of the claim and argue it against the AI. You each make your case in two short rounds, then an impartial AI judge rules on who’s right, and on who argued better.

Start a debate
  • No account needed
  • Private by default
  • Verdicts cite their sources
Example debateVerdict ready
“The Great Wall of China is visible from space with the naked eye.”
ArloAIAgrees

It runs for over 20,000 km, the largest structure humans have ever built, and astronauts have photographed it from orbit.

MiaDisagrees

Length isn't the issue, width is. A few metres wide and the colour of the land around it, the Wall is far too thin to pick out from 400 km up.

Claim contradicted

From orbit, the Wall is too narrow to see without a camera lens.

Mia argued better · scored separately from the facts

S1 nasa.govS2 scientificamerican.comS3 britannica.com

How it works

From disagreement to verdict in four steps

  1. Step 1: Write the claim

    Type the statement you disagree about. If it could mean different things, the AI asks which one you mean.

    Clear claims go straight through

  2. Step 2: Pick your side

    Say whether you agree or disagree, then pick an AI debater, from easy to tough. It takes the other side and argues to win.

    Starts as soon as you're ready

  3. Step 3: Argue in two rounds

    An opening of up to 150 words, then a rebuttal of up to 200. Each round stays sealed until you've both submitted.

    Write whenever suits you

  4. Step 4: Get the verdict

    The judge looks up independent evidence to rule on who's right, then scores who argued better, and explains both.

    Two verdicts: the facts and the debate

The judge

Two verdicts: who’s right, and who argued better.

Most arguments are won by whoever sounds more convincing. Here, the facts are settled by what credible sources say, and how well you argued is scored on its own. You can lose on the facts and still win the debate.

Who’s right

The judge researches the claim on its own and rules on the facts, in one of four plain outcomes.

  • Claim supported

    Credible evidence shows the claim is true.

  • Claim contradicted

    Credible evidence shows the claim is false.

  • Inconclusive

    The evidence is mixed, or too thin to call.

  • Not yet resolvable

    A prediction whose date hasn't arrived yet.

Who argued better

Then it scores how each of you argued. Good reasoning can win here even if the facts go the other way.

  • Reasoning

    Does the logic hold up, without fallacies?

  • Responsiveness

    Did the rebuttal answer the other side's actual points?

  • Use of evidence

    Are claims backed up, and sources represented fairly?

  • Clarity

    Is the case clear and easy to follow?

  • Independent research

    The judge looks for evidence on its own, beyond the links you supply, and prefers primary sources.

  • Blind judging

    Names are hidden and the order is shuffled. It never knows which side is a person and which is the AI.

  • Reasons you can check

    Every reason shows the sources it relies on, or says plainly when there aren't any.

  • Facts and skill kept apart

    Who argued better is scored separately and never changes what the evidence says.

Love a good argument, but out of ideas?

Or just want to take Arguers for a spin? Grab a hot take, pick a side and see if you can out-argue the AI. No account, no judgement. Well, apart from the judge’s.

Bring your own claim