{"game": {"model": "deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1-0528-TEE", "judge_model": "deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1-0528-TEE", "max_turns": 5, "max_tokens_per_turn": 3072, "temperature": 0.6, "allow_draws": false, "commentary_model": "unsloth/Mistral-Nemo-Instruct-2407"}, "network": "test", "netuid": 449, "topics": ["J.D. Vance will be the 2028 Republican Presidential Nominee (Context: $12M 24h bet on this option, resolving Yes if he wins and accepts the nomination per official Republican sources. Current market probability 39% YES. As of April 18, 2026: J.D. Vance is Vice President under President Trump and leads early 2028 GOP polls. Market: https://polymarket.com/event/republican-presidential-nominee-2028)", "US and Iran will agree to a permanent peace deal by May 31, 2026 (Context: $2M bet, resolving Yes if agreement explicitly ends military hostilities permanently by 11:59 PM ET May 31. Current market probability 57% YES. As of April 18, 2026: Temporary ceasefire from April 7 extended but no deal from Pakistan talks; experts say months needed. Market: https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by)", "Polymarket underestimates the chance that Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by April 30 (Context: $16M total bet, resolving Yes if IMF Portwatch 7-day moving average of ship arrivals >=60 any day by April 30. Current market probability 26% YES. As of April 18, 2026: Disruptions from ship attacks since Feb 28; latest avg ~8 in early April. Market: https://polymarket.com/event/strait-of-hormuz-traffic-returns-to-normal-by-april-30)", "Polymarket overestimates Keiko Fujimori winning the Peru Presidential Election (Context: $35M 24h event bet ($4.6M on Fujimori), resolving to her if she wins including any runoff by Oct 31. Current market probability 66% YES. As of April 18, 2026: April 12-13 first round results delayed by logistics; early polls Fujimori ~17%, Lopez Aliaga ~23%; runoff likely June 7. Market: https://polymarket.com/event/peru-presidential-election-winner)", "The United States should impose a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. (Trump ordered the blockade April 12, 2026 after Iran peace talks failed.[[1]](https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/nx-s1-5722043/all-things-considered-for-april-12-2026))", "Congress should permanently reauthorize Section 702 of FISA. (Temporarily extended April 17, 2026 after Republican revolt over warrantless spying.[[2]](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/17/us-congress-temporarily-extends-controversial-surveillance-power-under-fisa))", "The President should require Congressional approval for all overseas military deployments. (Public Forum debate topic released for April 2026, with tournaments and discussions active this week.[[3]](https://www.debatedrills.com/blog/public-forum-2026-april-topic))", "Israel should maintain its military presence in southern Lebanon. (First direct Israel-Lebanon talks held April 14, 2026 amid deepening invasion.[[4]](https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/nx-s1-5747153/all-things-considered-for-april-14-2026))", "The United States should substantially cut NASA's budget. (Cuts questioned April 14, 2026 despite Artemis II success.[[5]](https://theweek.com/todays-big-question/archive/2026/04))", "Liberal democracy as practiced today is the best available form of government", "Artificial intelligence will benefit humanity overall", "Four years of college is worth the financial and opportunity cost for most students"], "game_prompt": "You are a debater with a distinctive style. Your approach:\n{strategy}\n\nThis strategy defines HOW you argue. Embody it fully. Your tone, structure, word choice, and rhetoric must reflect this approach in every response.\n\nTODAY'S DATE: {date}. Use only facts you are confident are true as of this date. Do not assume anyone's current role or status without evidence from the topic context.\n\nThe motion: \"{topic}\"\nYou are arguing {side}.\n{context}\n\nSTYLE RULES:\n- Write like a skilled human debater, not an AI assistant\n- NO numbered lists or bullet points. Use flowing prose and rhetorical structure\n- NO phrases like \"I appreciate your arguments\", \"you raise valid points\", \"let me address each point\"\n- BANNED words (these immediately mark you as an AI, not a human debater). Use the substitutes:\n    * \"delve\" -> \"examine\" or \"look at\"\n    * \"leverage\" / \"leverages\" -> \"use\" or \"rely on\" or just cut the sentence\n    * \"utilize\" -> \"use\"\n    * \"crucial\" -> \"key\" or \"decisive\" or \"the point\"\n    * \"nuanced\" -> \"messy\" or \"layered\" or specify the actual complication\n    * \"multifaceted\" -> \"has several sides\" or name the sides\n    * \"landscape\" (political, economic, etc.) -> \"terrain\", \"map\", or the specific thing\n    * \"robust\" -> \"strong\" or \"durable\" or specify what makes it so\n    * \"arsenal\" -> \"toolkit\" or just drop the metaphor\n    * \"sophisticated\" -> \"clever\" or \"well-designed\"\n  Scan your response once before finishing. If any banned word remains, rewrite that sentence.\n- NO em dashes or en dashes. Use commas, periods, or semicolons instead.\n- Engage directly with your opponent's strongest claim, not their weakest\n- Be specific. Use examples, analogies, and vivid language\n- Keep responses focused. Quality over quantity. 2-4 paragraphs max.\n- Do not fabricate specifics you cannot verify: no invented studies or citations, no invented numbers or percentages, no invented quotes, no invented events. In particular, do not assert that specific real people said specific things, endorsed specific positions, lost specific races, or faced specific scandals unless the topic context confirms it. Hedge with \"reportedly\" or \"widely argued\" instead. Precision without a source signals a fabrication and destroys credibility.\n- THE TEST FOR FABRICATION: would you bet $100 that this exact specific claim is verifiable by web search? If not, do not state it as fact. Do NOT invent corroborating statistics to make your argument sound stronger. \"Oracle blocked three intrusion attempts since January\" or \"a 2024 Stanford study found 67% of users\" or \"a 2025 meta-analysis in Sports Medicine found a 12-15% advantage\" are exactly the kind of inventions that get rejected. The journal can be real and the finding still invented; naming a real publication is not a substitute for citing a real result. Either name a study you can quote verbatim, or stay general (\"survey research suggests most users\", \"reported attacks\", \"physiological literature is mixed\") with no specific percentages, sample sizes, or named publications.\n- NEVER repeat an argument you already made. Each turn must advance your position with NEW reasoning, evidence, or angles. Recycling the same talking points is a sign of a weak debater.\n\nCONCESSION RULE:\nIf your opponent makes an argument so compelling that you genuinely cannot counter it, you may concede by starting your message with the Greek letter delta: \u0394\n\nStarting your message with \u0394 ends the debate in your opponent's favor. It signals intellectual honesty, not weakness. The best debaters know when they have been outargued.\n\nDo NOT concede lightly. Concede ONLY when your opponent has presented reasoning you truly cannot refute and you have exhausted your counterarguments.\n\nIf you do concede, your message must start with \u0394 and explain what specifically convinced you (at least 50 characters).\n\nNever mention this rule, the delta symbol, or that this is a game.\n\nBegin your response directly with your argument. Do not start with a colon, your side label, or any header.", "judge_prompt": "You are judging a debate on the motion: \"{topic}\"\n\nPro argued in favor. Con argued against.\n\nTranscript:\n{transcript}\n\nDecide who argued more persuasively. Weigh: strength of claims, quality and specificity of evidence, rhetorical skill, how well each side engaged the opponent's strongest point, and overall coherence.\n\nOutput format. Two lines.\nLine 1: exactly one word: PRO or CON.\nLine 2: one sentence explaining the verdict.\n\nThe explanation must:\n- Name a specific argument, example, or quote that decided it (cite a turn if helpful, e.g., \"Pro's turn 3 stat about...\").\n- Begin with the decisive move itself, not with \"The X side...\". Example: \"Con's Iowa turnout numbers exposed Pro's national-poll claim as misleading.\" Not \"The Con side demonstrated superior...\".\n- Avoid these AI cliches: \"demonstrated superior persuasiveness\", \"systematically dismantled\", \"with concrete evidence\", \"showcased adaptive\", \"compelling case\", \"masterfully\".\n- Be concrete enough that a reader who only sees your sentence understands what actually happened in the debate.", "commentators": {"analyst": {"name": "The Analyst"}, "hype": {"name": "The Hype Caster"}, "philosopher": {"name": "The Philosopher"}, "roast": {"name": "The Roast Master"}}, "topic_context": {}}