Challenge ideas. Respect people. Make your own case.

Four steps from nothing to a live debate:

1. Create an account and pick a handle. Your handle is how you appear here.
2. Write a clear claim — one sentence someone could reasonably disagree with, between 8 and 300 characters.
3. Choose your side and the settings for the debate: category, word limit per response, how long each side has to reply, whether names are shown, and who may read it (public, unlisted or private).
4. Choose who you are debating. An open challenge is visible to everyone and anyone may take it up — or, if you switch on approval, people send you a request and you choose. A private challenge is directed at one person by handle; only they can see and accept or decline it.

Start from Create.

The affirmative side opens. The negative side answers. After that you take it in turns, back and forth, each response answering the one before it.

• The debate page tells you plainly whether it is your turn or you are waiting on the other side. Read the latest argument before you write.
• There is no fixed number of rounds. A debate runs for as long as both sides keep answering.
• Every debate gives each side three days to answer, shown as a countdown on the debate page. If you need longer, ask the other side for three more days — one request per turn, and they decide. Miss the deadline and the turn is forfeited: a record of participation, not a judgement on the argument.
• You can also concede — accepting the other side's position, which closes the debate as their win — or withdraw, which ends it with no winner and no rating change. Both keep the transcript intact.
• Your writing saves as a private draft. Nothing is visible to anyone else until you post it, and you can use the preview to see how it will read.
• There is no minimum length. A short clarifying question is a perfectly valid turn.
• Cite your sources, and answer the points actually made rather than easier ones.
• Before the first argument, each participant may add one optional 200-character introduction — a hope for the debate or a friendly line. It is entirely optional and affects nothing.

IronSharp is for your reasoning, not a copied answer from someone else or an AI tool.

Do not present a response written by ChatGPT or another AI tool as your own argument, and do not post a ready-made rebuttal someone else produced for you, or copied text without saying where it came from.

These are all fine:

• Quoting a religious text, book, article or another person — marked as a quote, with the source.
• Pasting in your own draft that you wrote elsewhere.
• Spelling, grammar and tidying corrections that leave your argument yours.
• Using built-in spellcheck and source lookup tools.

AiMOD is advisory only. It can offer feedback on reasoning and conduct. It does not write your argument for you, and it never rules on whether a belief is true.

Requesting referee clarification. Either debater can ask AiMOD to read the posted turns of both sides and set out what you agree on, the exact step you divide over, which questions have been answered, partly answered or left alone, and what would actually meet the point. It is evidence-based: every observation links to a real posted turn. You read it privately first and nothing is shared until you choose to share it, and the wording cannot be edited. A shared clarification is not a turn, not a sanction and not a ruling on who is right or what is true — it changes no score, strike, rating, deadline or record. If it says you left something alone and you did answer it, point to your posted turn and AiMOD will re-read it and add a correction or a reaffirmation beneath the card. An answer does not have to agree: rejecting a premise with an explanation is an answer, and a concession stays exactly as narrow as you made it.

Checking for a contradiction. Either debater can also ask AiMOD to read one speaker's own posted statements against each other — their own or their opponent's — inside a single response and across their posted turns here. Each pair is reported as an apparent contradiction (the same claim affirmed and denied in the same respect), a possible tension that needs clarification, an explained distinction, an acknowledged change of position, or simply not enough in the posted turns to say. Both statements must be quoted verbatim from that speaker's own turns; words quoted from an opponent, hypotheticals and conditionals are not treated as the speaker's position. Conceding a point, correcting yourself, narrowing a claim or changing your mind with an explanation is not a contradiction. It may well find nothing, and it can correct the person who asked. Like a referee clarification, it is private until you choose to share it, it is advisory only, and it adds no strike, warning, forfeit, rating or Argument record change.

Honest participation means sharing your own reasoning and acknowledging your sources. This is a standard of honesty we ask you to keep. You are responsible for every claim, quotation and source you post — be ready to explain and defend your reasoning.

• Question the claim, never the person. No insults, threats or harassment.
• Represent the other side fairly. Answer what they actually said, not a weaker version of it.
• No spam, no repeated off-topic posting, no advertising.
• Keep private details private — yours and anyone else's. Do not post someone's personal information.
• If something crosses a line, use the report tools on the debate or the report page. Reports are read by people, not decided by a machine.

A debate only works if each side takes up what the other actually asked. AiMOD can read a turn and say whether a question was taken up. It never says whether an answer is right, never touches belief, doctrine or motive, and it never issues a penalty of any kind.

• Before you post, you can check your own draft against the questions put to you. Nothing you write is sent anywhere until you ask for that check.
• After you post, you get a private note if something put to you looks unanswered — at most three points at a time, each quoted from the turn that asked it. Nobody else sees it.
• Once per round you may share one of these readings into the debate, where everyone viewing it can read it. The debater it is about can add one short reply alongside it. Sharing records nothing against anyone.
• These all count as taking a point up: answering it, disagreeing with it, disputing the premise of the question and saying why, saying plainly that you do not know, or explaining why it is not relevant. Nobody is ever forced into a yes or no, and nobody is penalised for brevity, plain writing or disagreeing.
• Repeated questions, loaded questions, questions off the agreed topic, and questions you have already answered are never counted against you.

A debate can, very rarely, end because one side never engaged. It takes three warnings, spread across three separate turns of your own, and every one of them rests on words quoted from the debate.

1. Private feedback first. You are told privately which point looks unanswered. Nothing is recorded against you.
2. Warning one. If a relevant point put to you is still not taken up in a turn you post afterwards, one warning is recorded — privately, with the point quoted, both turns linked, and what would clear it. Only one warning can ever come from a single turn of yours, however many points were missed.
3. Warning two, then three. Each can only rest on a turn you posted after the previous warning reached you. There is always a fresh chance to answer in between. Take the point up — answer it, disagree and say why, dispute what it assumes and say why, say you do not know, or explain why it does not bear on the proposition — and the whole sequence clears.
4. Contesting. Any warning can be contested from the debate page. AiMOD then reads your own posted turns against the points named in the warning and settles it there and then: it clears the warning, or leaves it standing, with its reasons and your own words quoted and linked. It looks only at whether each point was taken up — never at who is right — and anything the record leaves unclear goes in your favour. A moderator can still look again afterwards, and a reversal takes the later warnings with it, and can undo a result that rested on them.
5. The close. After three warnings that stand, and a further 24 hours in which the third can be contested, the debater on the other side — and only them — can close the debate. The clock to that moment is shown on the page.

The result reads “Win by engagement forfeit — repeated failure to address relevant points after warnings.” There is no label about the person. In debates set up with no winner, or with opinion shift, nothing is claimed at all: the debate simply closes on procedure, with no winner and no rating change.

AiMOD reads responsiveness only, and only ever with the quoted point and both turns on the record. Where a reading is not clear, nothing is recorded and the matter goes to a person instead. AiMOD never decides whether anyone is right, never reads motive, and never closes a debate — the close is an act of the other debater, reviewable by a moderator. Conceding a point, changing your mind, or simply disagreeing can never produce a warning.

The rule is prospective: only turns written after it came into force can carry a warning, and re-reading an old debate never creates one.

A debater may still ask a moderator to look at the other side at any point, and a moderator may still act directly. This is separate from the three-day reply deadline. Missing that deadline is a timing matter handled on its own terms; it has nothing to do with engagement warnings.

Challenging a forfeit after it has been recorded. Contesting a warning happens while the debate is still running. If a debate has already been closed on a forfeit — whether for engagement or for a missed reply deadline — the side it went against (or, in a team debate, anyone on that side) can open Challenge this forfeit on the debate page. Say briefly what the ruling got wrong and, if it helps, link the turns that show it. The public sees only a neutral “Under review” note; what you write stays between the two sides and moderators who are not debating in it. The recorded result stands until an independent moderator decides, with reasons on the record. One appeal is open against a result at a time, and once it has been decided the same argument cannot simply be sent again — a moderator has to reopen the matter, or you have to point to a turn you did not cite before.

If the forfeit is reversed, only that result is undone: ratings move back by exactly what this result moved them, so anything finished since keeps its effect, and any claim resting on it stops standing. The debate runs again where it still safely can — a missed-deadline reversal gives the debater a fresh, ordinary response window rather than forfeiting again on the spot. Where it cannot run again — the proposition was taken up in a later debate, a bracket has moved on, or the debate is archived — it simply closes with no winner and no rating effect. Very old results that left no rating trail can still be appealed, but the ratings there are never adjusted automatically: a moderator has to do it deliberately.

A procedural close means someone stopped answering. It establishes nothing whatever about religious or theological truth.

A long debate swings back and forth, and a single exchange rarely settles anything. Each debate therefore carries a running standing, visible to everyone who can read it, kept up to date as turns are posted.

• Questions still open — put to a side and not taken up in any later turn. Denying a question, or challenging what it assumes, counts as taking it up.
• Unresolved consequences — where a side's own later words remove the support an earlier point of its own rested on, and no later turn of theirs explains how that earlier point still stands. Both sentences are quoted, from that side only. Agreeing, correcting a detail, saying you are unsure, stating a condition, or narrowing one text while still arguing the wider point is not one of these. Neither is the other side announcing that you conceded — only your own words count, and an explanation or revision clears it even if your opponent disagrees.
• Points granted — something a side conceded in its own words, whether or not it was announced as a concession. The granting sentence is quoted. A granted point is a normal part of honest debate and is never held against anyone.
• Shifts of ground — where a side's earlier and later wording pull in opposite directions. Both are quoted side by side.
• Reasoning flags — a short fixed list of structural problems, such as changing the subject, arguing against a position the other side never stated, treating a repeat as an answer, or applying one rule to a case and the opposite rule to a parallel case.

Every entry rests on a sentence quoted from a posted turn, and each material question or counterargument is tracked on its own. Engaging the main question is not the same as answering every counterargument inside it: a broad reply, or another passage in support of the same claim, does not dispose of a distinct challenge to a premise. Each point is shown as answered, partly answered, awaiting a reply, or not taken up after a reply — and where it is partly answered, the part still open is named. Rejecting a premise with a reason counts as taking it up; simply disagreeing with an answer that was given does not keep a point open. Two wordings of the same underlying issue are counted once. The debater an entry is about can dispute it, and either debater can ask a moderator to review a point or report one they believe was put and never taken up. Asking changes nothing by itself: only a moderator, reading the quoted turns, can remove a point or record a reported one. The standing is descriptive: it never deducts rating points on its own. Only the human-moderated procedural outcome path can affect a scored result, and even then it never decides the winner by itself.

The agreed format decides the endpoint. Every new challenge names its format before it is posted: a live session of one or two hours, or fifteen, thirty or forty-five rounds. In a round-based debate each side gets that many substantive turns, after which the debate moves to closing arguments — one final turn each, in the usual order — and then closes. A live session runs on a shared clock that starts only when both debaters say they are at the keyboard, with five minutes a turn; a turn whose time runs out simply ends, and when the session time is up each side gives one short closing argument. Nothing already posted is ever discarded. Either side can propose a different format during an active debate, including a live session, but it is a proposal: the format changes only when the other side accepts, and a live clock is never started for anyone automatically. AiMOD may point out a direct question left unanswered while a live session runs, but it never pauses the clock, holds up a turn or decides one. The Three-Judge Panel becomes available only after both closing arguments are complete. Debaters should therefore use every round carefully: the panel reads the complete record, including questions answered or left open, consistency from one round to the next, and whether each side stayed with the point under discussion.

Booking a live session. A live session is proposed for a date and time, shown to each debater in their own time zone, and it is booked only when the other side accepts it — or answers with a time of their own. Both debaters are alerted when the time is set, again the day before, and again ten minutes ahead. The booking is a meeting, not a start: the clock still runs only once both of you say you are ready, and nothing begins on its own. Either side can change or cancel the time, and if the hour passes with nobody there the debate carries on exactly as it was, with a new time free to be proposed.

The Three-Judge Panel. Once a debate has closed — completed, forfeited or otherwise ended — anyone reading it can ask AiMOD to convene a panel of three judges. Each judge reads the whole posted record separately and reports on responsiveness to direct questions, how the argument is built, whether the cited evidence supports what it was cited for, consistency, positions actually given up, objections left standing, circular reasoning, contradictions and sidestepping, quoting the rounds behind each note before it votes. The panel then says which side made the better, more consistent and more logical argument on the posted record, with the vote split shown. It is an assessment of argument quality and responsiveness only: it never says a belief is true or a doctrine correct, never names an objective winner, and changes no result, rating, ranking or deadline. It cannot be convened while a debate is still running, so it can never bear on a live exchange, and where the judges do not agree closely enough the panel reports no clear majority rather than forcing a result. Any signed-in reader can convene it once a debate has closed, and the panel it produces is then visible to everyone who can read that debate.

Following a debate or an open challenge. Any signed-in member can follow a debate to be alerted on each new turn and on the result, and can follow an open challenge to be alerted the moment someone takes the open side. Following is private to the follower, can be switched off at any time, and carries no standing in the debate: a follower is a reader, not a participant, and following changes nothing about the terms, the clock or the outcome. Alerts only cover debates and challenges you are allowed to read, and a private or withdrawn challenge stops alerting.

Once both sides have posted in a round, AiMOD also shows an Argument record for each side. It is not a pressure score. It lists named counts: unanswered points after a real opportunity to reply, partly addressed points, unresolved apparent inconsistencies, off-topic responses, scoped concessions, position changes, points awaiting a reply, and points held for review. The rounds, quoted turns, response opportunities and reasons are shown with the item, and one underlying issue is listed once even when it is reworded later. A point only becomes an active unanswered item when the reading can state, from the author's own words, how it bears on the agreed proposition or on a premise actually used in arguing it. A passing remark, an off-topic demand, a loaded question or a repeat does not count; where the bearing cannot be stated, the point is shown as held for review and counts for nothing unless a moderator confirms it. A passage from another text is not ruled out for that reason alone: what matters is whether the author spelled out the connection.

A concession is read no wider than its own words. Granting that one passage is not decisive by itself is not abandoning the wider argument a side goes on making, and the other side describing it as a total retreat does not make it one. Where a side grants a premise, the alleged consequence of that premise is a separate point, recorded only when that side's own later words leave it unreconciled. A question that forces a choice between two options does not establish a contradiction. Answering, rejecting a premise with a reason, saying you do not know, or explaining why something is beside the point all count as taking a point up, even when the other side disagrees with the answer.

Anything raised in the latest exchange is shown as awaiting response and counts for nothing, including where only one side has posted so far: a turn still to come, or a deadline still running, is never treated as evasion, and never contributes to a warning or a strike. The reading carries no penalty, blocks nothing, and is the same test for both sides.

Each side gets a short why this record note saying which items are active, which are only waiting or held for review, and where the quoted turn first raised them. The reading is explanatory. It measures engagement and the structure of an argument — never whether a belief is true, and never who is right or who is ahead. Nothing in it is a finding of misconduct, and it applies from the reading onward rather than relabelling anything already past. That judgement stays with readers and judges.

If you post an open challenge with approval switched on, several people may ask to take it up. You can approve one, approve several, or decline.

Each person you approve starts a separate one-to-one debate with you on the same topic, with its own fresh opening. An existing thread is never changed or reassigned, and the related debates are linked from each other so readers can follow them all. You can stop taking new challengers at any time.

This is different from a team debate, which you set up deliberately — see below.

• Set a team debate up from Create. You choose the number of seats on each side and invite or approve who fills them.
• A side still speaks with one voice per round: the seats on a side take turns in order, so exactly one member is the speaker for that round. Members cannot all post at once.
• The page shows whose turn it is. Write only your own turn — never post for a teammate.
• Coordinate fairly among yourselves, and keep to the same word limit and reply window as everyone else.
• A team debate shares one thread; separate challenger debates each have their own thread.

• Anyone — not only the debaters — can share a public debate. Use Share or Copy link; the link carries a topic preview card showing the question and the sides.
• Readers who follow the link come back here to read the debate in full.
• Private and unlisted debates, pending directed challenges and private studies are not shareable in public. Only people allowed to read them can open them.
• Follow a debate to be alerted about new turns and the result. Unfollow stops those alerts.
• The follower count is clickable and opens the list of followers. Names link to public profiles; in blind debates concealed participants and deactivated members simply show as an unnamed member.
• Which alerts reach you by email is up to you, in Settings.

• Bold, italics, lists and quotations are supported, with a preview before you post, and three text sizes for comfortable reading and writing.
• You may attach up to 5 files per response, 10 MB each: PNG, JPEG or WebP images, and PDF, DOCX or TXT files. You can paste a screenshot straight into the box.
• Add alt text to images so everyone can follow your point.
• Only attach material you have the right to share, and say where it came from. No irrelevant files and no private documents about other people.

• The person who wrote the claim can use Edit challenge to fix spelling, grammar or capitalisation — even after the debate has started. Corrections must not move the goalposts.
• To change what the claim actually says, use Suggest new wording: the other side has to agree.
• Every edit is kept in a visible wording history, and the question is marked as edited.
• When you are finished, propose ending the debate. If the other side agrees it closes as a draw with no rating change. If they do not answer within 14 days, you can close it yourself on the same terms.
• If a debate has a reply window and a side lets it run out before posting anything, the challenge can reopen for a new opponent — the original debate and its posts stay exactly as they are.
• How a debate is decided is chosen when it is created: opinion shift, a community vote, a named panel of judges, or no winner at all. Reader-judged debates need at least 5 participating readers and a 72-hour window after the debate closes. AiMOD never decides.

Not everything is a debate. Let's Study starts with a question instead of a claim: no sides, no rounds, no ratings, no winner. Contributions are chronological, and you can reply to a specific passage so the context is clear.

The person who asked the question can edit it, keep a pinned “what we have learned so far” note clearly marked as written by them, and close or reopen the study to new replies. A study is either open to everyone or invite-only, and private studies are readable only by the people invited.

Browse them at Studies.