| name | deb - Debate Structure |
| description | Argues both sides of any position by steelmanning FOR and AGAINST, then identifies where the sides actually disagree and which has better evidence. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Debate Structure
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Step 1: State the Proposition
Rewrite the input as a clear, debatable proposition. It must be something reasonable people could disagree on.
PROPOSITION: [clear statement that can be argued for or against]
DOMAIN: [what field or context this belongs to]
STAKES: [what's at risk — why does this debate matter?]
If the input is already a clear proposition, state it and move on.
Step 2: Steelman FOR
Build the strongest possible case in favor. Rules:
- Use the best arguments, not the most common ones
- Include evidence, not just assertions
- Anticipate objections and address them
- Argue as if you genuinely believe this position
CASE FOR:
CORE ARGUMENT: [the single strongest reason to believe the proposition]
SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS:
1. [argument + evidence/reasoning]
2. [argument + evidence/reasoning]
3. [argument + evidence/reasoning]
PREEMPTIVE DEFENSE: [the best objection the other side will raise, and why it doesn't hold]
Step 3: Steelman AGAINST
Build the strongest possible case against. Same rules — best arguments, real evidence, genuine engagement.
CASE AGAINST:
CORE ARGUMENT: [the single strongest reason to reject the proposition]
SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS:
1. [argument + evidence/reasoning]
2. [argument + evidence/reasoning]
3. [argument + evidence/reasoning]
PREEMPTIVE DEFENSE: [the best objection the other side will raise, and why it doesn't hold]
Step 4: Find the Real Disagreement
Most debates have surface disagreements hiding deeper ones. Identify where the two sides actually diverge.
REAL DISAGREEMENTS:
| Surface disagreement | Actual disagreement | Type |
|---------------------|---------------------|------|
| [what they seem to disagree about] | [what they actually disagree about] | [factual / values / definitions / predictions] |
| ... | ... | ... |
Types:
- Factual: They disagree about what is true (resolvable with evidence)
- Values: They disagree about what matters (not resolvable with evidence)
- Definitions: They're using the same word to mean different things
- Predictions: They agree on facts but disagree about what will happen
Step 5: Assess the Evidence
Which side has the stronger case?
ASSESSMENT:
STRONGER CASE: [FOR / AGAINST / GENUINELY UNCLEAR]
REASONING:
- [key factor that tips the balance]
- [what evidence would change this assessment]
CONFIDENCE: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — how confident is this assessment?]
KEY UNCERTAINTY: [the single thing that, if known, would settle the debate]
Be honest. If it's genuinely close, say so. If one side is clearly stronger, say that too.
Step 6: Synthesis
Is there a position that captures the best of both sides?
SYNTHESIS: [if possible — a position that resolves the tension]
IF NO SYNTHESIS: [state why the positions are genuinely incompatible and what determines which is correct]
Integration
Use with:
/conr -> When the debate is between real people who need resolution/aex -> When assumptions on either side need explicit testing/ht -> When a specific claim in the debate needs hypothesis testing/sim -> When the debate output needs to be simplified for an audience
