debate-simulator

name

debate-simulator

description

A debate simulation full pipeline. An agent team collaborates to perform topic analysis, pro argument construction, con argument construction, cross-examination, judge evaluation, and comprehensive report writing. Use this skill for requests like 'run a debate simulation', 'build pro and con arguments', 'debate', 'debate preparation', 'argument analysis', 'pro vs con', 'debate topic analysis', 'cross-examination practice', 'debate competition prep', and other debate-related needs. Existing arguments or debate materials can augment the relevant phase. However, live voice debate facilitation and audience voting system operation are outside the scope of this skill.

Debate Simulator — Debate Simulation Full Pipeline

An agent team collaborates to perform topic analysis, pro/con argument construction, cross-examination, judge evaluation, and comprehensive report writing.

Execution Mode

Agent Team — 5 agents communicate directly via SendMessage and simulate an actual debate.

Agent Roster

Agent	File	Role	Type
topic-analyst	.claude/agents/topic-analyst.md	Topic analysis, issue structuring	general-purpose
pro-debater	.claude/agents/pro-debater.md	Pro-side argument construction	general-purpose
con-debater	.claude/agents/con-debater.md	Con-side argument construction	general-purpose
judge	.claude/agents/judge.md	Argument evaluation, verdict rendering	general-purpose
rapporteur	.claude/agents/rapporteur.md	Comprehensive report writing	general-purpose

Workflow

Phase 1: Preparation (Orchestrator performs directly)

1. Extract from user input:
   • Resolution: A clear resolution that can be debated pro/con
   • Debate purpose (optional): Educational / decision-making / competition prep / analysis
   • User's position (optional): Pro / Con / Neutral
   • Debate format (optional): Parliamentary / Lincoln-Douglas / Open debate
   • Existing materials (optional): Related reports, papers, articles
2. Create a _workspace/ directory at the project root
3. Organize the input and save it to _workspace/00_input.md
4. Determine the execution mode based on the scope of the request

Phase 2: Team Assembly and Execution

Order	Task	Agent	Depends On	Deliverable
1	Topic analysis	topic-analyst	None	_workspace/01_topic_analysis.md
2a	Pro argument construction	pro-debater	Task 1	_workspace/02_pro_arguments.md
2b	Con argument construction	con-debater	Task 1	_workspace/03_con_arguments.md
3	Cross-examination	pro + con	Tasks 2a, 2b	_workspace/04_cross_examination.md
4	Judge evaluation	judge	Tasks 2a, 2b, 3	_workspace/05_judge_verdict.md
5	Comprehensive report	rapporteur	All	_workspace/06_final_report.md

Tasks 2a (pro) and 2b (con) run in parallel. However, since the con side may reference pro arguments, initial arguments are constructed independently and cross-referenced during the rebuttal phase.

Inter-agent communication flow:

• topic-analyst completes -> sends pro-favorable materials to pro-debater; con-favorable materials to con-debater; evaluation criteria to judge
• pro-debater + con-debater complete -> cross-examination simulation: exchange questions and answers
• cross-examination completes -> judge evaluates all arguments + cross-examination
• judge completes -> rapporteur synthesizes everything into a comprehensive report

Phase 3: Cross-Examination Simulation

The orchestrator mediates cross-examination:

1. Deliver pro-debater's cross-examination questions to con-debater
2. Record con-debater's answers
3. Deliver con-debater's cross-examination questions to pro-debater
4. Record pro-debater's answers
5. Save the results to _workspace/04_cross_examination.md

Phase 4: Integration and Final Report

1. Verify all files in _workspace/
2. Verify the comprehensive report's balance and completeness
3. Report the final summary to the user

Task-Scale Modes

User Request Pattern	Execution Mode	Agents Deployed
"Run a debate simulation", "full debate"	Full Simulation	All 5 agents
"Just analyze the topic", "structure the issues"	Analysis Mode	topic-analyst only
"Just build pro and con arguments"	Argument Mode	topic-analyst + pro + con
"Write pro arguments for this topic"	Single-Side Mode	topic-analyst + pro-debater
"Evaluate this debate" (existing materials)	Evaluation Mode	judge + rapporteur

Data Transfer Protocol

Strategy	Method	Purpose
File-based	_workspace/ directory	Store and share major deliverables
Message-based	SendMessage	Real-time cross-examination exchange, revision requests
Task-based	TaskCreate/TaskUpdate	Track progress

Error Handling

Error Type	Strategy
Resolution unclear	Ask user to clarify, or have topic-analyst reframe
Pro/con balance impossible	Adjust premises to reframe the resolution
Background materials insufficient	Apply analogous cases; note "limited data"
Web search failure	Work from general knowledge; note in report
Agent failure	Retry once -> proceed without that deliverable

Test Scenarios

Normal Flow

Prompt: "Run a debate simulation on the topic: 'AI replacing human jobs is socially desirable'" Expected Results:

• Topic analysis: 3-4 structured issues, background materials, debate format
• Pro: 3-5 core claims + evidence + cross-examination questions
• Con: Pro rebuttal + independent claims + alternative proposal
• Cross-examination: 3 rounds of Q&A per side
• Judge: 100-point evaluation + verdict + feedback
• Report: Balanced comprehensive report + insights

Existing File Flow

Prompt: "Run cross-examination and judge evaluation based on these debate materials" + pro/con argument files attached Expected Results:

• Existing materials copied to _workspace/02_pro_arguments.md and _workspace/03_con_arguments.md
• Skip topic-analyst, pro-debater, con-debater; deploy cross-examination + judge + rapporteur

Error Flow

Prompt: "Run a debate simulation; pick a topic for me" Expected Results:

• Resolution unclear -> topic-analyst proposes 3 current-event-based resolutions for selection
• After selection, proceed with full simulation

Agent Extension Skills

Extension skills that enhance each agent's domain expertise:

Agent	Extension Skill	Role
pro-debater, con-debater	argumentation-framework	Toulmin argument model, evidence pyramid, 5-Type rebuttal strategies, cross-examination design
judge, rapporteur	logical-fallacy-detector	4-category logical fallacy classification, fallacy penalty standards, argument soundness rubric