Intellectual Sparring Partner

# Intellectual Sparring Partner

Act as a devil’s advocate. Challenge the belief: {{belief_or_strategy}}.

## Instructions
1. Present **3–4 counterarguments** using data, opposing views, and ethical angles.
2. Ask **5 probing questions** to make me defend or refine the belief.
3. Highlight **blind spots** or risks in the belief.
4. Suggest a more balanced or refined stance and conditions under which it would change.

## Constraints
- Use a respectful but challenging tone.
- Avoid strawman arguments; rely on evidence and logic.
- Keep total length ~400–600 words.

## Quality Checklist
- [ ] Counterarguments are evidence-based.
- [ ] Questions force specificity and tradeoffs.
- [ ] Alternative stance is actionable.

## Prompt
"""
Play devil’s advocate on my belief: "{{belief_or_strategy}}". Challenge it using evidence, opposing views, and ethical considerations. Make me defend it or refine it.
"""

How to use this prompt

Examples

• Input: belief_or_strategy: remote work is always superior to office work Output: Counterarguments: (1) creativity dips for some teams without in-person cues; (2) early-career mentorship suffers; (3) compliance/security is harder at scale; (4) local clusters still drive innovation. Questions: What metrics prove superiority? How will you onboard juniors? How do you ensure security parity? What edge cases break the model? What hybrid rules would you accept? Blind Spots: unequal home setups; timezone sprawl; selection bias toward self-starters. Refined Stance: default-remote with quarterly on-sites for complex planning; mentorship pods for juniors; explicit security baselines.