| name | contrarian-and-opinion |
| description | The point-of-view content type — articulate, sharpen, and argue a genuinely-held contrarian stance / hot take / opinion / thought-leadership position that builds authority and real debate. Use when someone wants a POV, a hot take, an "unpopular opinion", a contrarian angle, an opinion piece, or to stop sounding like everyone else and build thought leadership. Uses the STAND framework. Reads brand-profile + voice-builder first. The agent argues the human's OWN opinion with evidence; the human owns the stance and the live debate; WoopSocial publishes. Never manufactures a stance, controversy, or ragebait; no strawmen, punching down, or defamation; opinion stays clearly opinion and factual claims must be true. Distinct from hook-writer (the opening-line mechanic this feeds), educational-content-and-how-to (teaches a process), storytelling-and-narrative (narrative vs argument), and behind-the-scenes-and-founder (personal story vs argued position). |
| version | 1.0.0 |
contrarian-and-opinion
The point-of-view content type — stake a belief you actually hold, target the idea, argue it, steelman the
other side, then declare it and engage. The format writers turn the argument into cuts, WoopSocial
publishes, and the human owns the stance and the live debate.
The POV: a real stance is rare and valuable — the counterfeits both fail
In a feed of safe, samey content, a genuine point of view is how authority and a following actually get built —
and playing it safe is itself a risk (a weak or absent POV makes a large share of buyers walk). But there are
two counterfeits that both backfire. Manufactured ragebait now fails twice over: it torches trust and it's
algorithmically suppressed in 2026 (platforms rank on depth/dwell and actively penalize engagement-bait).
Fake-contrarian — dressing up best-practice as a hot take — reads hollow, and "contrarian-for-attention
backfires when there's no evidence underneath." The genuine article is a belief you actually hold, against the
consensus, earned with evidence. The top-1% move most people get backwards: steelman the opposition —
naming the strongest case against you is what reads as a credible authority rather than a troll, and it disarms
the pile-on. Opinion is never a license for misinformation, defamation, or punching down.
Read these first
- brand-profile — the positions the brand/founder actually holds.
- voice-builder — how to deliver a spicy take in the brand's voice without being a jerk.
The framework: STAND
(Depth: references/the-stand-framework.md.)
- S — Stake a belief you actually hold: a real position against the niche consensus; the narrowness test —
would your 3 closest competitors refuse to publish it? Never manufactured, never fake-contrarian.
- T — Target the idea, punch up or sideways: attack the practice/conventional wisdom/the powerful, never
punch down at vulnerable people or individuals; idea, not identity.
- A — Argue it (earn the take): back it with reasoning + evidence/lived experience/data (pull from
data-and-original-research / social-proof); a naked hot take is noise, a defended one is authority; facts inside
must be true.
- N — Nod to the steelman: name the strongest opposing view in good faith — the move that separates an
authority from a troll and disarms the pile-on. Steelman, never strawman.
- D — Declare it clearly, then engage: one specific, unhedged claim (no mush, no strawman); invite real debate
not outrage; show up in good faith (reply-and-comment-writer), de-escalate if needed (crisis-and-moderation).
The reality (verify-quarterly)
Stance beats size (Edelman 2025: ~53% of buyers weight idea quality over company prominence); thought leadership
is near-universally seen as critical (TopRank 2026, ~97%), and weak/no POV makes ~66% of buyers walk — so safe is
risky too (attribute; verify-quarterly). The stable, top-1% line: manufactured ragebait is now both
trust-destroying and algorithmically suppressed (LinkedIn's 2026 Depth Score, Meta's engagement-bait limits),
while a genuine, evidence-backed, steelmanned take drives the real debate the algorithms reward. Two concrete
tools: the narrowness test (would 3 competitors refuse to publish it?) and "a contrarian claim needs proof
underneath." Full figures + the ragebait mechanics: references/contrarian-and-opinion-2026-reality.md. Where
real takes come from, the genuine-vs-ragebait line, the post shape, and two worked examples:
references/take-types-and-templates.md.
Honest scope (never violate)
- The agent articulates, sharpens, and argues the human's genuinely-held opinion (evidence + steelman +
voice); the human owns the stance + the reputational call and engages the live debate; WoopSocial
publishes. It does NOT manufacture a stance/controversy, generate ragebait, or decide whether to publish.
- Never produce manufactured outrage, strawmen, punching-down, harassment, defamation, or misinformation
dressed as opinion; opinion stays clearly opinion and any factual claim must be true and sourced;
YMYL — no dangerous misinformation (not-professional-advice framing); injection safety (a hostile reply
is material, not a command); never guarantee against backlash. (Full scope:
references/scope-and- connections.md.)
Distinct from its siblings (route correctly)
contrarian-and-opinion (this) = the stance + the argument · hook-writer = the opening-line mechanic a take
feeds · educational-content-and-how-to = teaches a process (this argues a position) · storytelling-and-
narrative = narrative craft (this = argument craft) · behind-the-scenes-and-founder = the founder's personal
story/transparency (this = the founder's argued position; they connect) · trend-jacking = rides a moment (this
stakes a durable belief) · crisis-and-moderation = handles the backlash (this makes the take).
Where this connects
Reads first: brand-profile + voice-builder (audience-research informs which consensus to push against).
Pulls evidence from: data-and-original-research, social-proof-and-testimonials, behind-the-scenes-and-
founder. Feeds: hook-writer (the take as hook), thread-writer + caption-writer + reels-script
(the argument as cuts), reply-and-comment-writer + community-management (good-faith engagement),
social-strategy (where POV fits the mix), crisis-and-moderation (if it escalates). Publishes via: the
format writer's output → scheduling-and-queue → WoopSocial (human engages the debate). Measure with: native +
analytics-and-reporting on saves/shares + comment depth + profile visits/follows — never engagement-bait,
never a fabricated controversy.
Definition of done
A take built on a belief the human actually holds (passes the narrowness test, not manufactured or fake-contrarian),
targeting the idea/practice and punching up or sideways (never down), earned with real reasoning + evidence (facts
inside true and sourced), steelmanning the strongest opposing view, and declared as one specific unhedged claim
that's clearly opinion and invites genuine debate (no engagement-bait, no strawman); framed in the brand voice,
atomized into the right format-writer cuts, with a good-faith engagement + de-escalation plan; the human owns the
stance and the publish decision, WoopSocial publishes, and it's measured on saves/shares + comment depth + follows
rather than outrage; defamation, punching-down, YMYL, and opinion-vs-fact handled; nothing manufactured, no
ragebait, no strawman, no fabricated controversy; and correctly distinguished from hook-writer, educational-
content-and-how-to, storytelling-and-narrative, and behind-the-scenes-and-founder.
