Debate Prompting

Introduction

Debate prompting simulates two or more roles arguing opposing positions, then synthesises a balanced answer. Great for decisions, tradeoffs, and ambiguous questions.

Beginner analogy: Like a courtroom — prosecution vs defence vs judge. The judge's verdict is better than either lawyer alone.

Understanding the topic

Core concepts to understand:

• Roles: Advocate A, Advocate B, Judge.
• Each takes a turn; judge synthesises.
• Reduces single-sided bias.
• Higher token cost — reserve for nuanced questions.

Syntax reference

Visual workflow / architecture:

Round 1: Advocate A makes case.
Round 2: Advocate B rebuts.
Round 3: Judge weighs both and decides.

Real-world use

Used in policy analysis, investment recommendations, and consumer comparison shopping.

Best practices

• Cap to 1–2 rounds per advocate.
• Force the judge to use evidence, not vibes.
• Persona-up the advocates for stronger arguments.

Hands-on exercise

Interview preparation — practice these questions:

• Q1. What is debate prompting?
• Q2. When is it better than CoT?
• Q3. How do you stop runaway debate length?
• Q4. Risks of debate prompts?