Debate Craft need to avoid taking the same root as DebateArt and Debate.org.
DebateCraft need to cement their place as the World's debate place.
Creating a Wikipedia Page is not beyond the scope.
This is potentially a successful global platform.
Wikipedia may initially reject. But then we can go to the Wikipedia users Forum and get support there, from general editors.
It is like RRADD. You can either take the opportunity to control politics, or you can believe that you have no power, and allow those that believe in themselves, to dictate to you.
You have the ability to control AI.
I think though, to ask "why did pro win the debate", would be the human being biased.
AI would be assuming that you have already declared pro the winner, and now you are wanting AI to come up with an answer for why, which it will.
However to get AI to be unbiased, you would instead ask "Who won the debate".
The next question would be.
How does it work?
Maybe one player produces their AI opinion, complete with link to the chat.
Other player does the same with their AI.
And then we have a 3rd impartial and unbiased neutral, such as a member of Debatecraft MOD team or ADMIN do the same?
Perfect answer.
My thoughts entirely.
Though I may argue that it should take only "one" of the contenders to request AI.
The reason for that is "playing out for a tie", is unsporting.
It would take both players to agree on a tie. But only one to bring in AI.
I appreciate your opinion.
But would you not say that in the instance that there are no voters, on the last day, AI would be better than no voters at-all?
Also, I would gently argue that it all depends on how you are usin your AI, whether or not it is a good voter or not.
Are you using a powerful enough engine? Are you providing it with the information it requires to be a good voter?
DebateCraft currently relies upon human voters to decide the outcome of debates. Human judgement is valuable, but it is not automatically impartial or reliable.
People can be influenced by personal beliefs, political opinions, religious views, friendships, writing style, popularity, or simple disagreement with a debater’s conclusion. A voter may also encounter a debate that is extremely long, technical, or complicated and lack the time or specialist knowledge required to assess it properly.
This creates two possible problems.
First, two debaters may spend many hours researching and presenting detailed arguments, only for the debate to be declared a tie because nobody voted.
Second, a debate may be decided by a voter who did not fully understand the arguments but was able to provide a minimally acceptable justification for a guess. A confidently written vote is not necessarily a correct or properly informed vote.
I understand why many members want debates to be judged by humans. Debate is ultimately a human activity, and AI should not automatically replace community participation. However, should there be a fallback system for debates that are about to close without enough votes?
For example, when only one day of voting remains, AI could be invited to assess the debate when:
The AI assessment could use a published scoring framework covering evidence, reasoning, rebuttals, relevance, burden of proof, and rule compliance. Its reasoning could be displayed publicly, and either debater could be allowed to challenge clear factual or procedural errors.
AI is not perfectly unbiased either. It can misunderstand arguments, inherit biases from its training, or place too much weight on presentation. Therefore, it should perhaps act only as a last-resort voter rather than replacing human judgement entirely.
Governments and other formal organisations generally use rules concerning quorums, abstentions, recounts, and decision-making thresholds. Important decisions are not normally treated as intellectually settled merely because too few people participated. A debate platform may similarly need a procedure for situations in which the voting system fails to produce enough human judgement.
Should DebateCraft introduce AI as a transparent fallback voter when insufficient human votes have been cast, or is an unresolved tie preferable to any form of AI judgement?
Winning a debate is a significant achievement—but it does not mean the argument has been settled forever.
If you defeat the current champion in one of our designated Championship Debates, you become the new holder of the Debate Championship Belt for that topic.
We'll create a personalised championship belt image celebrating your victory and share it across our social media platforms—including Facebook—to help attract new challengers from around the world.
In other words, winning the debate earns you the belt—not permanent ownership of the argument.
Like a boxing world champion, your title is there to be defended. Anyone who believes they can present a stronger case is welcome to challenge you and attempt to take the belt.
Only when it is no longer practical to believe that any remaining challenger could defeat the reigning champion will the belt be retired.
At that point, the reigning champion will be awarded the DebateCraft Championship Trophy and officially recognised as the winner of the argument itself, not merely a single debate.
Our goal is simple:
We don't just want to know who wins today's debate—we want to discover the strongest argument that can withstand challenge after challenge from the widest possible field of opponents.
Think you can take the belt?
Step into the ring. Present your best case. Let the arguments decide.
🥊 Have a go... and take the belt!
