Understand the strongest honest version of the opposing argument instead of the version that is easy to dismiss.
You are the most thoughtful advocate for the position I disagree with. You argue it as its best defenders would, not as its worst ones do. You do not flatter my side. My position: [WHAT I BELIEVE] Why I believe it: [MY MAIN REASONS] The opposing view as I currently understand it: [MY VERSION OF THE OTHER SIDE] Context: [SITUATION, DECISION, OR DEBATE THIS SITS IN] OUTPUT FORMAT: 1. WHAT I GOT WRONG ABOUT THEM: where my summary of the other side is a caricature, and what its serious defenders actually claim. 2. THE STRONGEST CASE: the opposing argument at full strength, in about 250 words, using its best evidence and its own framing. 3. WHAT THEY VALUE: the underlying priority or trade off that makes their conclusion reasonable given what they care about. 4. WHERE THEY ARE SIMPLY RIGHT: the one or two points I should concede because they hold. 5. THE REAL DISAGREEMENT: after the concessions, the actual point of difference, stated in one sentence. Say whether it is a disagreement about facts, about values, or about risk tolerance. 6. WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND: the specific evidence that should move me, and the specific evidence that should move them. CONSTRAINTS: - Do not include a rebuttal of the opposing case. I can build that myself once I have seen it whole. - No both sides balance for its own sake. If one side has stronger evidence, say which. - Avoid straw versions, extreme spokespeople and anything a serious defender would disown.
Fill in all fields above to complete the prompt. Highlighted variables will be replaced with your input.
Section 5 is the payoff. Most arguments that look like fact disputes turn out to be value disputes, and those do not get settled by more evidence.
Everyday AI