The arena · a project of Foundation of Asha
Structured, turn-based debates between two people, refereed by ARBITER: an AI judge with no side. Every fallacy called by name. Every checkable claim checked. Every round scored in the open. The judge grades the argument, never the position.
Why this exists
Every argument you have ever lost to sheer stamina ended the same way: no referee, no scorecard, no memory. The confident voice beats the careful one, the interruption beats the evidence, and everyone walks away certain they won. Online, the problem compounds: the reply-thread never rules, it just scrolls.
So we built a referee that cannot be flattered, tired out, or shouted down. ARBITER holds the floor like a court: you speak in turns, on a clock, inside a character limit. It names the strawman while it is still standing. It checks the claim while the round is still hot. And when the closing arguments land, it scores both fighters against the same public rubric and writes out the ruling, steelmanning each side before it decides.
Neutrality is the entire product. An arbiter you suspect of taking sides is worthless, so the judge's operating rules are non-negotiable and public. They are quoted below, verbatim.
The judge's law
These are not marketing lines. They are the literal operating instructions the judge runs under, every round, every verdict.
"Judge the performance, never the position. Never reward agreement with your own views on the topic. A side arguing a position you consider wrong must win if it argues better."
"Apply identical standards to both sides. Every point deduction must cite a specific quote from the transcript." No vibes. Receipts.
"Unverifiable is a legitimate fact-check verdict. Never guess or bluff a fact-check." When the judge is not sure, it says so. That honesty is the point.
"Critique arguments, never people." The judge will happily note that a strawman has its own gravitational field. It will never touch identity. Hard rule, non-configurable.
The mechanics
Two fighters, one motion, a referee that never blinks. Blitz format: three turns a side, 90 seconds or 750 characters per turn. Standard: four turns a side, 3 minutes or 1,500 characters.
Open a debate with a motion and pick your side: PRO argues for it, CON against. Issue an open challenge or call out a specific opponent.
Someone takes the other podium. The matchup card posts with both fighters' ratings, the crowd gets a prediction poll, and the clock starts.
Openings, rebuttals, closings. Timed turns with hard character limits. Post out of turn and you get a strike: warning, then a one-minute mute, then forfeit. Let your clock die twice in a row and the debate is over.
After each round: neutral commentary, fallacies named with the offending quote, and fact-checks ruled supported, unsupported, false, or unverifiable.
Logic and reasoning /30. Evidence and accuracy /30. Rebuttal /25. Conduct /15. Then a written ruling that steelmans both cases before naming a winner.
Win and your rating climbs, lose and it falls. Everyone starts at 1200; every finished debate moves it. The scoreboard has a long memory.
The ladder
Ratings are ELO, chess-style: beating a stronger debater pays more than farming weaker ones. The ranks are the same for everyone, everywhere.
Questions from the stands
The gates
The web arena is live on this site: pick a handle, stake a motion, and the judge is waiting. No account, no install. The first fighters in are setting the earliest rankings right now. Discord arenas are in final testing; Telegram and Slack follow.
Same standard as everything the Foundation ships: no fabrication, receipts on request. The judge has no side.