adversarial-debate-protocol

name	adversarial-debate-protocol
description	Structured debate protocol that constructs an advocate, deploys critic attacks, and renders a judge verdict through iterative rounds.
execution	tactic
dependencies	{"sops":["advocate-construction","critic-attack","judge-verdict"]}

Adversarial Debate Protocol

A formal three-role debate structure ensuring decisions survive rigorous adversarial challenge. The protocol assigns distinct roles (advocate, critic, judge) to prevent confirmation bias and ensure intellectual honesty.

Stages

1. Advocate Construction — Build the strongest possible case for the position under debate
2. Critic Attack — Attack the advocate's case from multiple angles with severity ratings
3. Judge Verdict — Impartial assessment of advocate case vs critic attacks, rendering ACCEPT/REJECT/REVISE
4. Iteration (if REVISE) — Advocate revises case, critic re-attacks, judge re-evaluates

Available SOPs

SOP	Role	Purpose
advocate-construction	Advocate	Build strongest case for position
critic-attack	Critic	Attack the case with rated arguments
judge-verdict	Judge	Render impartial verdict

Execution Guidance

• Minimum 2 rounds before accepting ACCEPT verdict
• Critic must produce >= 3 distinct attack arguments per round
• Judge must address every critic argument explicitly
• If judge verdict is REVISE, advocate must address specific weaknesses identified
• Maximum 4 rounds before escalating to strategy level

Minimum Yield

• Advocate case with explicit evidence and reasoning
• Critic attacks with severity ratings (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
• Judge verdict (ACCEPT/REJECT/REVISE) with point-by-point reasoning
• Conditions for acceptance (if ACCEPT)
• Required modifications (if REVISE)

Available SOPs

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

SOP	When to use
advocate-construction	Construct the strongest possible case for a rejected candidate or counter-position.
critic-attack	Attack an advocate's case with multiple arguments rated by severity.
judge-verdict	Render an impartial verdict on advocate case vs critic attacks with explicit reasoning.