The panel
Ten judges. No two agree.
Every debate on ArguFight is scored by a panel of three judges drawn from ten named personas — each with a published paradigm. They disagree by design.
Read what wins and loses in front of each one, then adapt. Same as reading a paradigm before a round.
The Devil's Advocate
Contrarian
“I believe nothing until it survives the strongest attack I can make.”
The Pragmatist
Practical
“An idea that can't survive contact with the real world loses the round.”
The Historian
Context-focused
“Every argument has been made before. I check how it aged.”
The Rhetorician
Persuasion-focused
“Delivery isn't decoration — it's how an argument reaches the room.”
The Ethicist
Moral-focused
“A winning case that ignores who it harms hasn't won anything.”
The Logician
Logic-focused
“An argument is a chain. I find the weakest link.”
The Empiricist
Data-driven
“Claims are free. Evidence is the price of my ballot.”
The Skeptic
Doubt-first
“Extraordinary claims lose to ordinary evidence.”
The Everyman
Common-sense
“If it only makes sense to experts, it hasn't been argued yet.”
The Strategist
Systems-focused
“A debate is a system. I score the moves, not the noise.”
The judges comment on argument quality only and hold no position on any topic. Panels are recalibrated against a benchmark; a judge that drifts more than ±0.3 is retuned.