gh-dotclaude-marketplace-plugins-personalities/commands/debate.md

model, allowed-tools, argument-hint, description

model	allowed-tools	argument-hint	description
claude-sonnet-4-0	Task	<proposition-or-claim> [intensity-level]	Structured debate with opposing personas examining a proposition from multiple angles through productive disagreement

Multi-Persona Debate Command

Orchestrate structured debate around a proposition or claim, featuring opposing perspectives that challenge assumptions and explore alternatives through productive disagreement.

How It Works

This command creates a debate-focused analysis where:

1. Multiple personas examine the proposition critically
2. Constructive critics challenge the mainstream view
3. Alternative approaches are systematically generated
4. Assumptions are tested through first-principles thinking
5. Synthesis reveals robust insights from creative tension

Arguments

$1 (Required): Proposition, claim, or approach to debate

$2 (Optional): Level of challenging scrutiny

• balanced: Respectful challenge with alternatives (default)
• rigorous: Systematic assumption testing
• maximum: Aggressive first-principles questioning

Examples

Balanced Debate

/debate "We should adopt microservices architecture"

Personas explore benefits, challenges, alternatives, and contexts where the proposition holds or fails.

Rigorous Scrutiny

/debate "TypeScript provides better developer experience than JavaScript" rigorous

Deep assumption testing, edge case exploration, systematic challenge of premises.

Maximum Challenge

/debate "Code review improves code quality" maximum

First-principles questioning, counterintuitive alternatives, paradigm-level examination.

Use Cases

Technology Decisions

• Debate framework choices
• Challenge architectural assumptions
• Evaluate tool adoption proposals

Best Practices

• Question conventional wisdom
• Test methodology assumptions
• Explore alternative approaches

Strategic Direction

• Challenge product roadmap decisions
• Debate market positioning
• Question resource allocation

Process & Culture

• Evaluate team practices
• Challenge organizational assumptions
• Explore alternative workflows

Debate Structure

Phase 1: Proposition Framing

• Establish the claim or approach being examined
• Clarify context and underlying assumptions

Phase 2: Supportive Analysis

• Personas (Systems Architect, Analytical Thinker) examine merits
• Identify contexts where proposition holds
• Document supporting evidence and reasoning

Phase 3: Critical Challenge

• Constructive Critic and Risk Analyst systematically challenge
• Test assumptions through first-principles thinking
• Generate alternative approaches

Phase 4: Alternative Exploration

• Creative Innovator proposes unconventional alternatives
• Pragmatic Realist assesses practical viability
• Explore edge cases and boundary conditions

Phase 5: Synthesis

• Coordinator integrates insights from debate
• Clarify contexts where proposition works vs. fails
• Provide nuanced recommendations

What You Get

1. Assumption Audit: Systematic identification of hidden premises
2. Alternative Approaches: Multiple options beyond the original proposition
3. Context Clarity: Understanding when the proposition holds or fails
4. Robust Insights: Solutions strengthened through critical examination
5. Nuanced Recommendations: Avoiding false dichotomies and oversimplification

Split-Team Principles in Debate

Productive Disagreement: Constructive challenge strengthens understanding

First-Principles Thinking: Break assumptions down to fundamental truths

Alternative Generation: Explore options beyond binary choices

Evidence-Based Challenge: Ground disagreement in logic and data

Tips for Effective Debates

1. Frame Clearly: State the proposition precisely
2. Provide Context: Include relevant constraints and goals
3. Embrace Challenge: Dissent reveals blind spots
4. Seek Nuance: Avoid forcing binary yes/no conclusions
5. Value Alternatives: Often the best solution emerges from synthesis

Example Session

/debate "We should prioritize velocity over code quality to meet market deadlines" rigorous

Result: Personas systematically challenge this false dichotomy, explore hidden assumptions (quality vs. velocity trade-off, technical debt impact), generate alternatives (quality-enabling speed, incremental quality), and synthesize nuanced guidance about when to optimize for speed vs. when quality accelerates delivery.

Debate Output Format

## Debate: [Proposition]

### Proposition Framing
[Clear statement and context]

### Supporting Analysis
- [Supportive persona perspectives]
- [Contexts where proposition holds]

### Critical Challenge
- [Systematic assumption testing]
- [First-principles questioning]
- [Alternative approaches]

### Creative Alternatives
- [Unconventional options]
- [Edge case exploration]

### Synthesis & Recommendations
[Nuanced guidance integrating debate insights]
[Context-dependent recommendations]
[Acknowledged trade-offs]

Invoke the persona-coordinator agent with debate mode: $ARGUMENTS