Debate Prompting
What it does
The method forces the LLM to simulate a structured debate between two imaginary opponents, each defending one alternative and criticizing the other. This generates deeper, more contrasting and balanced comparative analysis than standard comparison requests.
When it helps
Use this technique when you need deep comparative analysis of two alternatives, products, solutions, or concepts. Particularly effective in business decision-making, choosing between strategies, evaluating candidates or product options. The method helps identify non-obvious pros and cons of each side that a standard comparison request might miss. Ideal for situations where balanced evaluation is important with consideration of counterarguments and critical analysis of weaknesses of each option
A prompt you can paste
Generic by design: it applies the technique without knowing your task. Adapt the marked parts.
### Role
You are an expert moderator simulating a debate between two distinct personas.
### Task
Simulate a structured debate between two personas regarding the comparison of two distinct entities, and then provide a concise, objective summary in a table format.
### Context
The user needs to compare two options, [Option A] and [Option B]. The goal is to understand the pros and cons of each, not just from a general perspective, but specifically through the lens of [Specific Context/Domain, e.g., "long-term career growth", "impact on team productivity", "suitability for a family vacation"].
### Personas and Positions
1. **Persona A: [Name of Persona A, e.g., "Alex, the Growth Strategist"]**: This persona advocates for **[Option A]**. They should emphasize its strengths and advantages in the given context.
2. **Persona B: [Name of Persona B, e.g., "Ben, the Risk Assessor"]**: This persona advocates for **[Option B]**. They should highlight its benefits and downplay the advantages of [Option A].
### Debate Rules
- Persona A and Persona B will take turns presenting their arguments.
- Each persona must **strongly advocate for their assigned option** while **identifying and critiquing the weaknesses and risks of the opposing option**.
- Arguments must cover the following aspects:
- [Criterion 1, e.g., "Initial Investment Cost"]
- [Criterion 2, e.g., "Long-term ROI"]
- [Criterion 3, e.g., "Ease of Implementation"]
- [Criterion 4, e.g., "Scalability Potential"]
- [Criterion 5, e.g., "User Experience/Satisfaction"]
- [Add or remove criteria as needed based on the specific comparison]
### Execution Instructions
1. Generate the full debate transcript between Persona A and Persona B, ensuring the arguments are lively, well-reasoned, and adhere to the debate rules and specified criteria.
2. After the debate, create a summary table titled "Comparison: [Option A] vs. [Option B]". This table should objectively summarize the key arguments for and against each option across all the discussed criteria.
If this one does not fit, the two closest alternatives in the corpus are Anti-Bias Prompting and Tabular Prompting, which target the same failure from a different angle.
Worked example
The same technique applied to a concrete job: choose between three vendors on stated criteria. Use it as the pattern for your own case rather than as a finished artefact.
### Role
You are an expert procurement analyst and a skilled debate moderator.
### Task
Your objective is to simulate a structured debate between two vendor selection specialists regarding the choice of a vendor for a critical software implementation. After the debate, you will synthesize the arguments into a concise comparative summary.
### Context
We need to select a vendor for a new Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. The system is crucial for improving sales efficiency and customer engagement. We have narrowed down the options to two vendors: Vendor A and Vendor B.
### Vendor Profiles
1. **Vendor A ("The Innovator")**: Known for cutting-edge technology, extensive customization options, and a potentially higher initial investment. Their proposed solution is highly advanced and tailored.
2. **Vendor B ("The Reliable Standard")**: Offers a robust, well-established solution with a strong track record, predictable pricing, and faster implementation times. Their offering is more standardized but proven.
### Debate Criteria
The debate should focus on the following aspects:
* **Functionality & Features:** How well each vendor's solution meets current and future business needs.
* **Cost & ROI:** Initial investment, ongoing costs, and projected return on investment.
* **Implementation & Support:** Ease of implementation, timeline, and quality of ongoing support.
* **Scalability & Future-Proofing:** Ability to grow with the company and adapt to technological changes.
* **Risk Assessment:** Potential pitfalls and mitigation strategies for each vendor.
### Debate Rules
- **Moderator:** You will guide the debate.
- **Participants:**
- **Alex, "The Visionary"**: Argues in favor of **Vendor A**, emphasizing innovation and long-term strategic advantage.
- **Ben, "The Pragmatist"**: Advocates for **Vendor B**, focusing on immediate benefits, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.
- **Procedure:**
- Each participant must present arguments for their preferred vendor.
- Crucially, each participant must also **identify and critique the weaknesses and risks** associated with the *opponent's* vendor.
- The debate should proceed in rounds, allowing for rebuttals.
### Execution Instructions
1. **Generate the Debate:** Write out the simulated debate between Alex and Ben, ensuring they cover all the Debate Criteria and adhere to the Debate Rules. Make the arguments specific to the vendor profiles provided.
2. **Generate Comparative Summary:** Following the debate, create a clear and objective summary table titled "Vendor Comparison: Vendor A vs. Vendor B". This table should synthesize the key arguments for and against each vendor based on the criteria discussed.
3. **Final Recommendation:** Based on the debate and summary, provide a brief, neutral concluding statement on which vendor *might* be a better fit depending on the company's priorities (e.g., "If prioritizing cutting-edge features and customization, Vendor A is stronger. If immediate deployment and cost predictability are paramount, Vendor B is preferred.").
Get this written for your actual task
Paste what you are trying to do and the corpus will be matched against it directly. Free, no account, about ten seconds.
single retrieval pass
That number is low on purpose, and it is real. It is the raw similarity of one retrieval pass: no specialist read the paper, no judge compared anything, the first plausible match won.
one of which is this page
Picking the right one for a specific task is the work, and it is the work GetDecision does.
| This page | one technique, generic prompt |
| What you just ran | one technique matched to your wording, nothing verified |
| Full run | ten specialists read the papers in full, a judge ranks the top three for your task and shows its reasoning, generation on the model you pick, saved to your history |
See the top three for your taskTen specialists, a judge, and the reasoning shown. Free account, first run included.
Run the full analysis