Three students who wanted a better way to learn this.
Juror was created by three high school students who wanted learning constitutional law to be interactive, engaging, and about actual reasoning.
Built by students, for students.
Who built it
Three of themOm Palsule
Worked on the product itself, from deciding what Juror should do to implementing new features and improving the experience. Focused on turning the idea into a working application and continually testing what works, what doesn't, and what needs to change.
Also worked closely with the AI side of Juror, using structured prompting and repeated testing to improve how the system debates, scores, and coaches students. The goal wasn't simply to make an AI that could argue, but to make an experience that actually helps a student become better at making an argument.
Shri Kulkarni
Focused on the core of Juror's debate experience. Worked on redesigning how a debate should actually work, how the AI should respond to a student's arguments, and how the scoring should reflect the quality of the reasoning rather than simply whether an answer sounds convincing.
Also took on the deeper prompt engineering behind the debates, refining the instructions that determine how Juror argues, responds, and evaluates a student. The focus was making each debate feel purposeful and personalized to the student's actual argument.
Raja Nandula
Worked on improving the parts of Juror that students and teachers interact with outside the main debate. This included making errors clearer, fixing the learning checkpoints so students receive the answers and explanations they need, and making the overall learning experience more useful.
Also worked on the presentation side of the project, helping turn what we built into something we can clearly communicate to teachers, students, and others who want to understand what Juror does and why we built it.
Why they built it
Constitutional law is taught as a list to memorise: the amendment, the case, the holding. That is the part a search engine already does. What a list cannot teach you is how to hold a position when somebody who disagrees is answering back, which is the whole of what the law actually is.
So Juror was built the other way round. You read the text, take a side of a question that has two defensible answers, and defend it across rounds against an opponent that has read the same record. Every argument comes back marked against the same rubric, with the reasoning shown, so the score is something you can disagree with rather than something you have to accept.
Try what they built.
Free and unlimited, for every student and every teacher.