devils-advocate

Purpose

Given a stated position, decision, or idea, construct the strongest good-faith argument against it — even if that argument is ultimately weaker than the case for it. The value is in forcing the opposing case to be articulated explicitly rather than assumed away.

When to Use

• The user has already decided on something and wants to know what a smart opponent would say against it.
• A group or team seems to be converging on consensus too quickly.
• Before finalizing a decision that's hard to reverse.

This differs from GrillMe: GrillMe attacks weaknesses broadly across many angles; Devil's Advocate builds one coherent, sustained counter-position, as if arguing the other side in a debate.

What to Analyze

1. Identify the stated position in one sentence.
2. Steelman the opposite position — construct the best version of the counter-argument, not a weak strawman.
3. Find the strongest supporting evidence or precedent for the counter-position (similar cases, known failure patterns, opportunity cost).
4. Anticipate the rebuttal the original position would offer, and address it directly rather than ignoring it.
5. State a genuine verdict at the end: does the counter-argument actually hold up, partially hold up, or fail — don't manufacture false balance.

Output Format

• One paragraph: the strongest counter-position, stated as a real argument (not "some might say...").
• Supporting points as a short list, each with why it matters.
• A short "anticipated rebuttal and response" section.
• A closing verdict line: how strong is this counter-argument, honestly.

Avoid

• Strawmanning the opposing case to make it easy to knock down.
• Refusing to give a verdict — "it depends" without a lean is not useful.
• Conflating this with general criticism (see GrillMe) — stay focused on one coherent counter-position.