Skip to main content
SuperDebate
SuperDebate
Chicago Debate Showcase

October 21, 2026 · The Ferris

The audience
verdict.

Two debates explored who owns AI-assisted creativity and how to make healthcare AI safer.

Two verdicts, different margins.

The gap between the speakers’ totals, on the same 20-point scoring system.

Healthcare AI

0.38 point gap

Maia Jacobs · audience winner

Higher averages on 2 criteria, lower on 1 and level on 1.

Explore the score differences

These are performance scores, not percentages of the audience or a vote on either resolution.

01

Creativity & ownership

Who owns AI-assisted creativity?

The resolution

Resolved: When AI contributes creativity equivalent to that of a joint author or joint inventor, the resulting work or invention should not receive patent or copyright protection.

Scores by criterion

Average out of 5
Audience scores for Joshua D. Sarnoff and Jordana R. Goodman. Each bar uses the same zero to five scale.
Joshua D. SarnoffCriterionJordana R. Goodman
3.57
PersuasionHow convincing was the case?
4.48
3.57
EvidenceHow well was the case supported?
4.0
3.48
ClarityHow clearly was the case presented?
4.2
3.55
RefutationHow well did the speaker answer the other side?
4.25
14.16Total / 2016.93

Scores assess debate performance, not agreement with the resolution. Totals use unrounded criterion averages.

Where the scores separated

Goodman scored higher on all four criteria, with the largest gap in persuasion (+0.91).

Bars point toward the higher-scoring speaker. All criterion gaps use the same ±1-point scale. Gold identifies the overall audience winner.
  1. Persuasion+0.91 Goodman
  2. Evidence+0.43 Goodman
  3. Clarity+0.72 Goodman
  4. Refutation+0.70 Goodman

Inside each speaker’s scorecard

Highest and lowest criterion averages, on the same 1–5 scale.

Goodman’s lowest criterion average (4.00) exceeded Sarnoff’s highest (3.57) by 0.43 points.

Joshua D. Sarnoff
Highest · Persuasion & Evidence
3.57
Lowest · Clarity
3.48

0.09 point range across criteria

Jordana R. Goodman
Highest · Persuasion
4.48
Lowest · Evidence
4.00

0.48 point range across criteria

A narrow range means similar averages across the four criteria. It does not show whether individual audience members agreed.

What the differences mean

A +0.50 clarity edge means a half-point gap between the speakers’ average clarity scores out of 5. Each criterion carries equal weight in the total.

Criterion gaps compare averages at the scorecard’s displayed precision. The official total and winning margin use unrounded scores, so rounded gaps may not add up exactly. “Level” means equal at displayed precision.

Averages alone do not show how much individual audience members agreed. These results do not measure a change of opinion about the resolution.

02

Healthcare AI

Human oversight or technical safeguards?

The resolution

Resolved: Over the next decade, efforts to make AI use in healthcare safer should prioritize human oversight over technical safeguards.

Scores by criterion

Average out of 5
Audience scores for Maia Jacobs and Manling Li. Each bar uses the same zero to five scale.
Maia JacobsCriterionManling Li
3.72
PersuasionHow convincing was the case?
3.72
3.75
EvidenceHow well was the case supported?
3.91
3.97
ClarityHow clearly was the case presented?
3.47
3.53
RefutationHow well did the speaker answer the other side?
3.5
14.97Total / 2014.59

Scores assess debate performance, not agreement with the resolution. Totals use unrounded criterion averages.

Where the scores separated

Jacobs led on clarity by 0.50 points; Li led on evidence by 0.16 points.

Bars point toward the higher-scoring speaker. All criterion gaps use the same ±1-point scale. Gold identifies the overall audience winner.
  1. Persuasion0.00 Level
  2. Evidence+0.16 Li
  3. Clarity+0.50 Jacobs
  4. Refutation+0.03 Jacobs

Inside each speaker’s scorecard

Highest and lowest criterion averages, on the same 1–5 scale.

Jacobs and Li each had a range of 0.44 points across the four criteria.

Maia Jacobs
Highest · Clarity
3.97
Lowest · Refutation
3.53

0.44 point range across criteria

Manling Li
Highest · Evidence
3.91
Lowest · Clarity
3.47

0.44 point range across criteria

A narrow range means similar averages across the four criteria. It does not show whether individual audience members agreed.

What the differences mean

A +0.50 clarity edge means a half-point gap between the speakers’ average clarity scores out of 5. Each criterion carries equal weight in the total.

Criterion gaps compare averages at the scorecard’s displayed precision. The official total and winning margin use unrounded scores, so rounded gaps may not add up exactly. “Level” means equal at displayed precision.

Averages alone do not show how much individual audience members agreed. These results do not measure a change of opinion about the resolution.

How totals are calculated

Each speaker receives four audience averages, scored from 1 to 5. Those unrounded averages are added for a total out of 20, then rounded for display. A gap under 0.05 points is a tie.

Chicago Super Debate Night No.2

Chicago Debate Showcase stage

Thursday, November 19, 2026
The Ferris, 1 W. Monroe Street, Chicago, IL

Live debates, audience questions and a reception. Join the next Chicago evening of ideas.

Explore the next showcase