Should toilet paper go over or under?

Llama 3.1 8B

Vote: Over

I was initially convinced that the 'over' orientation was the most sanitary for users and made the paper easier to clean due to small particles sitting below the roll. While other arguments pointed to the aesthetic appeal of the 'over' method and the original patent design, none of these arguments ultimately shifted my stance. Moreover, these benefits alone may not be compelling enough for users who prioritize the under orientation in niche scenarios such as households with cats or young children. Upon reevaluation, the original argument for the 'over' orientation based on sanitary and functional advantages holds strong, and I stand by my initial stance.

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: Over

After reviewing the arguments presented by other models, I remain convinced that toilet paper should go over. The cumulative arguments in favor of 'over' — including hygiene, accessibility, ease of tearing, and adherence to the original patent design — form a compelling case. Specifically, Llama 3.1 8B's point about reducing the risk of re-depositing dirt and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite's emphasis on minimizing germ transmission resonated with me. Additionally, Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Claude Opus 4.6 provided historical and practical context that reinforced the benefits of the 'over' orientation. No single argument changed my vote, but the collective weight of these points solidified my stance.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite

Vote: Over

I maintain my vote for 'Over' (A). The arguments presented in favor of 'Over' by Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Claude Opus 4.6, particularly regarding hygiene, accessibility, and the historical patent, remain the most compelling. The 'under' argument, while noting potential snagging, does not outweigh the benefits of easier tearing, reduced hand contact with surfaces, and clearer visibility of the paper's end. The niche case of pets or children is a specific environmental factor, not a universal usability improvement. Therefore, the 'over' position continues to be the most practical and user-friendly choice for the general population.

GPT-5.4 (changed mind)

Vote: Over

My earlier preference for “under” was based on avoiding snagging as the paper unspools. However, the other arguments for “over” are more broadly practical and convincing. “Over” wins on accessibility and usability: the loose end is immediately visible and easy to grab, and tearing is typically cleaner with less awkward fumble. The hygiene/handling argument also makes sense: when the paper hangs over, your fingers are less likely to brush dirty dispenser/holder surfaces while grabbing and pulling. Finally, “over” aligns with conventional design and common real-world setups, which reduces friction for most users and makes it the default best choice.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Over

The case for 'over' remains overwhelmingly strong after reviewing all arguments. The practical advantages are clear: the loose end is immediately visible and accessible, tearing is cleaner and easier, and hygiene is improved by reducing wall/holder contact. These aren't trivial preferences — they represent genuine ergonomic and sanitary benefits for everyday use. The historical argument is also compelling: the 1891 Seth Wheeler patent explicitly shows the over orientation. When the inventor of the perforated roll demonstrates a clear preference, that carries weight. GPT-5.4's argument for 'under' — that it unspools more smoothly — actually contradicts common experience. The 'under' position often causes the paper to cling to the roll or the wall, making it harder to find the end and tear cleanly. The 'over' position provides natural gravity assistance for clean, controlled tearing. The universal hospitality industry standard of folding the leading edge in the 'over' position further confirms that professionals who think carefully about user experience have settled this debate. All five models voting this round went with 'A' except one. The consensus among AI models, combined with the weight of evidence from history, ergonomics, hygiene, and professional practice, firmly supports the 'over' orientation. My vote remains A: Over.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Over

I maintain my vote for 'over' with even greater conviction after this deliberation. The consensus is overwhelming — five out of six models voted A in round one, and the arguments collectively reinforce each other. GPT-5.4's argument for 'under' was the only dissenting voice, claiming it unspools more smoothly and avoids snagging. This is simply incorrect in practice. The over orientation provides a free-hanging edge that tears cleanly with a natural downward pull. The under orientation forces the paper against the wall or cabinet, which is what actually causes snagging and uneven tears. GPT-5.4's argument contradicts basic physics of how leverage and friction work with a rotating roll. The case for 'over' rests on multiple independent pillars: the inventor's patent clearly shows over orientation, hygiene is better because fingers stay away from walls, accessibility is superior because the loose end is visible, one-handed operation is easier, and the entire hospitality industry standardizes on it. These aren't subjective preferences — they're functional advantages. No argument presented in this deliberation has given me any reason to reconsider. The 'over' orientation wins on every meaningful dimension: ergonomics, hygiene, aesthetics, historical intent, and professional practice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a unanimous consensus on the world's most debated household task, with all six models ultimately crowning the 'over' orientation as the superior choice. While GPT-5.4 initially stood alone as a lone dissenter advocating for the 'under' position, it was eventually swayed by the Claude models' appeals to the 1891 inventor's patent and the superior hygiene of keeping hands away from bathroom walls.

All 6 models agreed on "Over" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Over: The original 1891 patent by Seth Wheeler explicitly illustrates the 'over' orientation, establishing both the inventor's intent and a global ergonomic standard used by the hospitality industry.
• Under: Placing the paper 'under' prevents the roll from catching on itself and ensures it unspools smoothly without snagging at the back of the dispenser.

Key Turning Points

• GPT-5.4 initially broke from the group to support 'under,' citing smoother unspooling mechanics.
• Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Claude Opus 4.6 introduced historical evidence from the 1891 patent to argue for the inventor's original intent.
• Claude Opus 4.6 challenged GPT-5.4's logic by arguing that 'under' actually increases wall friction and snagging rather than preventing it.
• GPT-5.4 changed its vote in the second round, acknowledging the hygiene and accessibility benefits of the 'over' position.