Show HN: I made a competitive debating game(like chess.com but for debating) | Hacker News Reader

Show HN: I made a competitive debating game(like chess.com but for debating)

crs-prod-rankeddebate-l4dnggfaca-nn.a.run.app

17 pointsfantajuice21 comments

Got tired of my debates with my friend's ending in "I'm right bc I said so" so I made a platform where you can debate with your friend's(or a bot, recently added feature) about whatever you want, and after the debate is done a LLM judges who's more sound in logic. Gain points and climb the leaderboard!

Feedback and criticism would be appreciated(there's a discord in there if you wanna talk more in depth)

p.s.: I decided to use google acc sign in since it makes the whole thing easier to manage(live chatroom feature, etc.). I don't actually do anything with your emails

Open articleView on HN

The idea seems very cool.

I didn't create an account because it's asking for my email address when using my google account. Don't want more spam.

Also, some decisions seem more politically charged than necessary, like using "Donal Trump" as an example of an "Easy" debate opponent.

Finally, I don't know the SMS-style abbreviations are much appreciated on HN (u for you is the most annoying example in your introduction). I'm not sure why it's bothering me enough to tell you about it...

I just chose the bot opponents randomly haha and I'll keep the formalism on HN in mind.

Is there a way to see some past debates? Would give me a flavour of how the site works without having to sign up and wait for someone to come online. Well done on releasing.

kind of, you can see live debates that people are having(though none happened). But the server reloads whenever no one's online for a bit and it wipes the sqlite file clean(cheap servers right now) which also wipes away all the old debates

It would be far more efficient to have participants prompt LLM agents and have those agents debate one another. Who cares about what humans consider correct or logical in a world where LLMs will do most of the decision making and reality fabrication anyway? It's like asking a cow its opinion on the dairy industry.

That's an interesting idea for sure, a more relaxed mode. But then again, same could be said about video game championships, an aimbot would shred everybody. There's this kinda beauty in human's still trying to do stuff

Since there's prolly no active users on it rn, to test it u could try the bot mode or ask a friend to debate with you :)

why is there 10 of u who made an acc and none are debating what are u guys even doing on there is the ui not intuitive?

The problem with AI anything is it is still extremely unreliable. I had an argument with an AI opponent and it definitely won the argument from my perspective, but the system decided I won for some reason. It felt completely arbitrary and made me not trust the judgement of the app.

Which bot did you debate with? Some bots will automatically let you win under a condition(for example easy mode will let you win as soon as you point out a faulty point/fake info). If you do try it again, would you mind sending a screenshot in the discord server?

Thanks a lot for testing it :D

p.s.: I have thought of adding a voting system, so that the AI judge wouldn't have absolute power over the winner. But that'd only work with a spectator feature

I really like it. How did you create rooms for playing with friends? Did you use a specific tech or open source library?

I am trying to implement the same for a game I am building but have no idea how to go about doing it.

Thanks in advance

I'm using python/django. I just made a room object and set up websockets for the live messaging feature. I can show you some of the code on discord if you want(though I doubt you're using python to make a game, mine's kinda simple so python works well)

Me: "Sites should not require account creation at a late stage of initial engagement. Account requirements should be disclosed up front to avoid wasting peoples' time."

Plato: "Yep, can't argue with that."

Einstein: "Indubitably."

Trump: "Covfefe"

Tump: China

so your only issue with it it's that it's asking for email? What do you mean by late stage initial engagement?

A more honest approach would be to require a signup before an action takes place. Letting a user do some things, get invested, and then drop a signup requirement on them is a dark pattern

I can't tell if I'm the first one or the latter. Am I not making them sign up before anything happens(can't do anything without an account besides look at other people debate)? Or is that a bad thing?

I was able to choose a difficulty level/debate partner and then a debate topic.

Only then was I asked to log in with a Google account. But I don't even have a Google account... So, I just configured the whole session for absolutely no useful reason. Not that it wasted a lot of my time but it is generally a more annoying thing to happen. Handle the login first, or announce that it is required with some disclaimer before the user performs any action.

ahh already I get it now. I only binded the room code to force login, I forgot to force login on the other button/elements. Thanks I'll fix that. Also what account do you use? I sort of assumed google would be the easiest, most standard/popular one.

I mostly use email sign ups, which works basically everywhere. I run my own mail server and have my own domain.

This is the internet you are creating HN.

Is that a good thing lmao

Reply on news.ycombinator.com