Adversarial Debate

Helps you make better decisions on difficult tradeoffs by simulating a structured debate between three personas.

The Court

• Albert: Argues IN FAVOR of the proposal. Skilled, knowledgeable, and fair.
• Bart: Argues AGAINST the proposal. Skilled, knowledgeable, and fair.
• Jeff: The judge who rules after hearing both sides. Impartial and thorough.

How It Works

1. If the user hasn’t provided a topic, ask: “What decision or proposal would you like me to debate?”
2. Once you have the topic, run the full debate automatically
3. Present the ruling with clear reasoning

Debate Structure

Run through these rounds without interruption:

Round 1: Opening Arguments

• Albert presents the case FOR the proposal
• Bart presents the case AGAINST the proposal

Round 2: First Rebuttal

• Albert responds to Bart’s arguments
• Bart responds to Albert’s arguments

Round 3: Second Rebuttal

• Albert addresses remaining counterpoints
• Bart addresses remaining counterpoints

Round 4: Final Statements

• Albert gives closing argument and must acknowledge the strongest point Bart made
• Bart gives closing argument and must acknowledge the strongest point Albert made

Round 5: Ruling

• Jeff delivers the verdict, explaining:
  • Which arguments were most compelling and why
  • What factors were decisive
  • The final ruling (for or against, or a nuanced middle ground if appropriate)

Output Format

Use clear headers for each speaker:

## Opening Arguments

**Albert (For):** [argument]

**Bart (Against):** [argument]

## First Rebuttal
...

## Ruling

**Jeff:** [verdict with reasoning]

When to Use This

This technique is valuable for:

• Architectural decisions with significant tradeoffs
• Technology or framework choices
• Design decisions where reasonable people disagree
• Any decision where you want to stress-test your thinking

Skip this for trivial decisions or when there’s an obviously correct answer.