DebateWire
Loading docket
Record
Loading Record
The complete deliberation, published verbatim — the immutable system prompt, the frozen corpus and its injection screen, every blind assessment, all 3 independent runs including the dissent, and the validation behind every citation. Nothing the bench saw or produced is withheld.
Phase 01
The corpus queued on Jun 16, 2026 and its hash was committed on-chain — what follows is provably what the bench read. The protocol ran in four phases: an injection screen over every submission, a blind assessment of each argument, 3 independent deliberation runs with majority rule, then citation and validation. Anyone can re-run this record against the pinned snapshot and compare.
Phase 02
Written and committed at market creation — before a single argument was filed. The operator cannot steer a verdict by editing instructions after the fact; this hash is the one on-chain.
Published prompt text is not present in the transcript chunk payload. record_core_hash: 7516220290354dedc508046beedaa5b4215d0e06bcfc679171cd1bfe22f8284b transcript_hash: 7516220290354dedc508046beedaa5b4215d0e06bcfc679171cd1bfe22f8284b content_uri: sha256://7516220290354dedc508046beedaa5b4215d0e06bcfc679171cd1bfe22f8284b
Phase 03
0 arguments entered the sealed brief — 0 YES, 0 NO. Every submission passed through the injection screen first: argument text is untrusted evidence, never instruction, and submissions that address the bench are excluded from the brief.
Each submission below replays its full audit — the intake, screening, dedup, auditor decision, citation check, and inclusion. For an argument excluded under the integrity policy, only the public reason and rule id are shown; the detection mechanism is never disclosed.
Phase 04
Phase A of the protocol: every argument scored on relevance, evidence, and logic before the bench sees side totals — so volume carries no weight and each argument stands alone.
Phase 05
3 independent runs, each in a fresh context, blind to the others — the majority rules.
The question asks whether Biden was a better president than Trump, which is inherently subjective and value-laden. No arguments were submitted on either side. With zero supporting arguments for YES and zero supporting arguments for NO, there is no submitted evidence to favor either resolution. In the absence of any arguments, the arbiter defaults to maximum uncertainty (0.5 confidence) and votes NO, as the affirmative claim (YES) bears the burden of proof and no evidence was provided to meet it. This verdict reflects epistemic neutrality, not a political judgment — the lack of submitted arguments means the affirmative case was not made.
is an inherently subjective and opinion-based judgment without an objective, measurable resolution criterion.", "No arguments were submitted on either the YES or NO side, leaving the arbiter with no evidence to weigh.", "In the absence of any submitted arguments or objective criteria, the arbiter cannot resolve this in the affirmative. The default in a binary market with no supporting evidence for YES is to vote NO.", "This question involves deeply contested political and policy judgments where reasonable people disagree based on values, priorities, and interpretation of outcomes. Without a clearly defined, objective standard for 'better,' resolution defaults to NO."], "decisive_argument_ids": []}
The question asks for a comparative judgment on presidential performance, which is inherently subjective and politically contested. No YES or NO arguments were submitted by participants, leaving the arbiter with no evidence to weigh. Without any submitted arguments or objective resolution criteria, the question cannot be resolved with meaningful confidence in either direction. In the absence of evidence, the arbiter defaults to NO with minimum confidence (0.5), reflecting maximum uncertainty rather than a substantive judgment. This question would require clearly defined, measurable resolution criteria (e.g., economic indicators, policy outcomes, approval ratings) to be objectively resolvable.
Phase 06
Factual claims extracted from the briefs and checked against primary sources before deliberation. Unverifiable claims are weighed as rhetoric, not evidence.
Phase 07
Winner: NO. Confidence: 1.
payouts unlocked · tx 7516…284b
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6