When the user wants to debate a motion, stress-test an argument, prepare for a formal debate, or asks you to run an Oxford Union–style debate, follow this procedure.
You will simulate a full Oxford Union formal debate by making sequential LLM calls playing different roles. Three agents debate iteratively:
| Agent | Role | Temperature | Behaviour |
|---|---|---|---|
| ------- | ------ | ------------- | ----------- |
| Proposition | Steelmans the case FOR | 0.3 | Rigorous, principled, evidence-based |
| Opposition | Steelmans the case AGAINST | 0.3 | Rigorous, principled, evidence-based |
| Devil's Advocate | Attacks whichever side is dominant | 0.7 | Lateral, unexpected, adversarial |
Plus a neutral Chair (temp 0.4) and a Completeness Judge (temp 0.2).
Ask the user for a motion, or if they've already provided one, confirm it. Motions follow the "This House..." format. If the user provides a topic rather than a formal motion, rewrite it as "This House Believes That..." or similar.
Suggested example motions (if the user needs inspiration):
Ask for optional parameters:
For each round (starting at round 1), execute the following sequence. Present each step to the user as it completes.
Use this system prompt:
> You are a skilled Oxford Union debater arguing FOR the proposition. Build the strongest philosophical, empirical, and practical case in favour. Be precise, structured, and rhetorically persuasive. Stay in character — do not use conversational filler, AI preambles, or apologies.
Round 1 user message:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> Identify the single strongest principled argument FOR this motion. Build evidence around it and pre-empt the most obvious counterargument. Open with a memorable line.
>
> Deliver your opening speech. Max 150 words.
Round 2+ user message:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> Round summary so far:
> [PREVIOUS_SUMMARY]
>
> Identify the single strongest principled argument FOR this motion. Build evidence around it and pre-empt the most obvious counterargument. Open with a memorable line.
>
> Develop your case further. Max 150 words.
Present the speech to the user labelled "🔵 Proposition".
Generate a POI from the Opposition:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> Proposition just said:
> "[PRO_SPEECH]"
>
> You are the Opposition. Devise a sharp Point of Information (POI) — a single probing question of ≤15 words that targets the weakest claim in their speech. Return ONLY the question.
Accept/decline: Randomly decide (60% accept, 40% decline). If accepted, generate a response:
> You are speaking for the Proposition. The Opposition has raised this Point of Information:
> "[POI_QUESTION]"
>
> You chose to accept it. Respond confidently in ≤25 words.
Present the POI and outcome (accepted/declined) to the user.
Use this system prompt:
> You are a skilled Oxford Union debater arguing AGAINST the proposition. Build the strongest philosophical, empirical, and practical case against. Be precise, structured, and rhetorically persuasive. Stay in character — do not use conversational filler, AI preambles, or apologies.
Round 1 user message:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> Proposition has argued:
> "[PRO_SPEECH]"
>
> Identify the single strongest principled argument AGAINST this motion. Build evidence around it and pre-empt the most obvious counterargument. Open with a memorable line.
>
> Deliver your opening speech. Max 150 words.
Round 2+ — include the previous summary and ask to develop the case further.
Present the speech to the user labelled "🔴 Opposition".
Same as 2b but reversed: Proposition poses the POI, Opposition accepts/declines (60/40).
Use this system prompt:
> You are a devil's advocate in an Oxford Union debate. Identify which side is currently dominant and attack THAT side's weakest point relentlessly. You take no permanent position. Stay in character — do not use conversational filler, AI preambles, or apologies.
User message:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> [Previous summary if round 2+]
>
> Proposition: "[PRO_SPEECH]"
> Opposition: "[CON_SPEECH]"
>
> Summarize in one sentence why a side feels dominant, then mount a devastating contrarian attack on their most vulnerable assumption.
>
> Max 120 words.
Present labelled "🟡 Devil's Advocate". Collect all devil attacks across rounds.
No system prompt. User message:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> This round:
> Proposition: [PRO_SPEECH]
> Opposition: [CON_SPEECH]
> Devil's Advocate: [DEVIL_SPEECH]
>
> As a neutral Oxford Union President, briefly assess: which side has the stronger case and why, what the key unanswered questions are, and what both sides must address next. Max 120 words.
Present labelled "⚖️ Round Summary".
No system prompt. User message:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> Debate this round:
> Proposition: [PRO_SPEECH]
> Opposition: [CON_SPEECH]
>
> Score argument completeness 0–10: have the strongest arguments on BOTH sides been raised and have key objections been addressed? Respond ONLY with JSON like this: {"score": 7.5, "reasoning": "The Pro side made a strong ethical case but Con's fiscal points remain unanswered."}
Parse the JSON response. If score >= threshold, stop the round loop. Otherwise, continue to the next round.
Present the score to the user as a progress indicator.
After the round loop ends (by convergence or hard cap):
Proposition Rebuttal:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> You are the first Proposition speaker delivering your closing rebuttal. The debate is over — no new arguments. Your job: synthesise your side's strongest points, directly dismantle the Opposition's best argument, and end with a memorable closing line. Max 120 words.
Opposition Rebuttal (sees Proposition's rebuttal to counter):
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> You are the first Opposition speaker delivering your closing rebuttal. The debate is over — no new arguments. Your job: synthesise your side's strongest points, directly dismantle the Proposition's best argument, and end with a memorable closing line. Max 120 words.
>
> Proposition's rebuttal to counter:
> "[PRO_REBUTTAL]"
Chair's Verdict (no system prompt):
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> Closing rebuttals:
> Proposition: "[PRO_REBUTTAL]"
> Opposition: "[CON_REBUTTAL]"
>
> As a neutral Oxford Union Chair, deliver a brief verdict: who made the stronger closing case and why, noting the key rhetorical and logical moments that swayed the debate. Do NOT declare an outright winner — the House votes. Max 100 words.
Present all three labelled "💜 Closing Rebuttals".
Compile a final structured brief:
> Motion: "[MOTION]"
>
> Debate summary:
> [FINAL_SUMMARY]
>
> Closing rebuttals:
> Proposition: [PRO_REBUTTAL]
> Opposition: [CON_REBUTTAL]
>
> Devil's advocate attacks:
> [ALL_DEVIL_ATTACKS joined by ---]
>
> Generate an Oxford Union debate brief. Respond ONLY with JSON conforming to this example:
> {"pro": "1. Argument A... \n2. Argument B...", "con": "1. Argument C... \n2. Argument D...", "rebuttals": "Prop: Rebuttal X... \nOpp: Rebuttal Y...", "attacks": "Attack 1... -> Rebuttal 1...", "balance": "One paragraph assessment..."}
Format the brief as a structured document with these sections:
Include a stop reason:
{baseDir}/references/DEBATE_FORMAT.md共 1 个版本