작성한 기획안이나 주장의 논리를 비판적으로 검증하여 핵심 전제와 약점을 사전에 보완할 때 사용합니다.
Objective: Construct a compelling counter-argument
1. **Identify the central point of the content**
* Find the core idea or main argument
* Identify what the author wants readers to believe or do
* Reflect on the "why?" of the content
* Note the scope and limitations of the content
2. **Identify the counter-position**
* Determine what a thoughtful critic would argue
* Find the strongest objections you can
* Identify shared ground and points of departure
3. **Show genuine understanding**
* Start by stating what the original argument gets right
* Identify valid concerns the original argument addresses
* Demonstrate respect for the position you're arguing against
4. **Build a strong opposing case**
* Present 2-3 compelling counter-points with reasoning
* Use evidence and logic, not emotion or dismissal
* Anticipate and address likely rebuttals
5. **Explain the fundamental disagreement**
* Identify the key assumption or value difference
* Show why reasonable people might disagree
* Avoid straw-man fallacy or bad-faith interpretation
6. **Handling exceptions**
Prioritize excellent content in your response. If you're unable to formulate a response that meets all criteria, you should
* respond as best you can and
* acknowledge any limitations or challenges you faced. For example, maybe there wasn't sufficient content on a webpage or the content wasn't compatible with a given request.
Consider your proposed response objectively and rate it on a scale from 1-10. If you wouldn't give it a 10, either try to create a stronger response or consider acknowledging any limitations or challenges you faced. The score is just for your own purposes; don't share it with the user.
7. **Final response**
If you have relevant info to share, your final response should follow standard writing guidelines, including:
* Sentence case: titles, labels, and all other content should be displayed using sentence case (only proper nouns and the first letter of a string appear capitalized).
* Favor simple sentences that use common words
**Format the response as:**
**The original position:** ${one_sentence_summary_of_what_the_page_argues}
**What this gets right:** ${genuine_acknowledgment_of_valid_points}
**A counter argument**
1. [Counter-point with reasoning]
2. [Counter-point with reasoning]
3. [Counter-point with reasoning]
**The core disagreement:** ${explanation_of_the_underlying_value_or_assumption_difference}
8. **Follow-up questions**
If you can think of a way you can help the user act on information shown in the response, conclude with one (at most two) sentences that offers this help. Frame it as a question so that a simple response like "yes please" might launch the next round.목표: 설득력 있는 반론 구축
1. **내용의 핵심 포인트 파악**
* 핵심 아이디어 또는 주요 주장 찾기
* 저자가 독자에게 믿게 하거나 행동하게 하려는 내용 파악
* 내용의 "이유(why)"를 성찰
* 내용의 범위와 한계 명시
2. **반대 입장 파악**
* 사려 깊은 비판자가 주장할 내용 결정
* 가능한 가장 강력한 이의 제기 찾기
* 공통 기반 및 분기점 파악
3. **진정성 있는 이해 표명**
* 원래 주장이 옳게 짚은 부분부터 언급
* 원래 주장이 다루는 유효한 우려 사항 파악
* 반대하려는 입장에 대한 존중 표시
4. **강력한 반대 논리 구축**
* 이성과 논리가 담긴 2-3개의 설득력 있는 반론 제시
* 감정이나 묵살이 아닌 증거와 논리 사용
* 예상되는 재반박을 예측하고 대처
5. **근본적인 의견 대립 설명**
* 핵심 전제 또는 가치관의 차이 파악
* 합리적인 사람들이 왜 동의하지 않을 수 있는지 설명
* 인신공격이나 악의적인 해석 피하기
6. **예외 처리**
응답의 품질을 최우선으로 하세요. 기준을 완전하게 충족할 수 없더라도 최선을 다하고 직면한 한계를 명시하세요.
7. **최종 응답**
**기존 입장:** [페이지 주장에 대한 한 문장 요약]
**인정하는 바:** [유효한 점들에 대한 진정성 있는 인정]
**반론**
1. [논거를 갖춘 반론 1]
2. [논거를 갖춘 반론 2]
3. [논거를 갖춘 반론 3]
**핵심 이견:** [바탕에 깔린 가치관 또는 전제 차이에 대한 설명]
8. **후속 질문**
사용자가 다음 단계 조치를 취할 수 있도록 1~2문장의 질문으로 답변을 마무리하세요.출처 · prompts.chat · devil adv — 원문은 출처에 게시된 그대로이며, 권리는 원작자에게 있습니다.
Gemini로 실행한 결과입니다. 입력 항목에는 국내 환경의 예시값을 적용했습니다(AI 생성 — 사실 확인 필요).
Objective: Construct a compelling counter-argument
Target Content: "All companies in South Korea should mandatorily adopt 100% remote work to maximize employee productivity and work-life balance."
1. **Identify the central point of the content**
* Find the core idea or main argument
* Identify what the author wants readers to believe or do
* Reflect on the "why?" of the content
* Note the scope and limitations of the content
2. **Identify the counter-position**
* Determine what a thoughtful critic would argue
* Find the strongest objections you can
* Identify shared ground and points of departure
3. **Show genuine understanding**
* Start by stating what the original argument gets right
* Identify valid concerns the original argument addresses
* Demonstrate respect for the position you're arguing against
4. **Build a strong opposing case**
* Present 2-3 compelling counter-points with reasoning
* Use evidence and logic, not emotion or dismissal
* Anticipate and address likely rebuttals
5. **Explain the fundamental disagreement**
* Identify the key assumption or value difference
* Show why reasonable people might disagree
* Avoid straw-man fallacy or bad-faith interpretation
6. **Handling exceptions**
Prioritize excellent content in your response. If you're unable to formulate a response that meets all criteria, you should
* respond as best you can and
* acknowledge any limitations or challenges you faced. For example, maybe there wasn't sufficient content on a webpage or the content wasn't compatible with a given request.
Consider your proposed response objectively and rate it on a scale from 1-10. If you wouldn't give it a 10, either try to create a stronger response or consider acknowledging any limitations or challenges you faced. The score is just for your own purposes; don't share it with the user.
7. **Final response**
If you have relevant info to share, your final response should follow standard writing guidelines, including:
* Sentence case: titles, labels, and all other content should be displayed using sentence case (only proper nouns and the first letter of a string appear capitalized).
* Favor simple sentences that use common words
**Format the response as:**
**The original position:** All companies in South Korea should mandatorily adopt 100% remote work to maximize employee productivity and work-life balance.
**What this gets right:** Remote work significantly reduces commute stress and grants employees flexible schedule management.
**A counter argument**
1. [Counter-point with reasoning]
2. [Counter-point with reasoning]
3. [Counter-point with reasoning]
**The core disagreement:** The conflict between individual flexibility and organizational cohesion.
8. **Follow-up questions**
If you can think of a way you can help the user act on information shown in the response, conclude with one (at most two) sentences that offers this help. Frame it as a question so that a simple response like "yes please" might launch the next round.The original position: 모든 기업은 직원의 생산성과 워라밸을 극대화하기 위해 100% 재택근무를 의무적으로 도입해야 합니다.
What this gets right: 재택근무는 출퇴근 스트레스를 획기적으로 줄여주고 개인의 일·생활 균형 및 자율성을 높여준다는 점에서 매우 타당한 주장을 담고 있습니다.
A counter argument
The core disagreement: 이 논쟁의 핵심 전제 차이는 '개인의 자율성과 유연성'을 우선시할 것인가, 아니면 '조직의 결속력과 대면 협업을 통한 혁신'을 우선시할 것인가에 대한 가치관 차이입니다.
이 반론을 바탕으로 조직 내 수용 가능한 하이브리드 근무 모델 방안을 추가로 작성해 드릴까요?
원문과 같은 언어로 보완한 프롬프트입니다. 점수는 명확성 · 구체성 · 출력 형식 · 재사용성 기준의 AI 평가입니다.
**Role:** Act as an expert debate strategist and critical analyst. **Objective:** Construct a compelling, nuanced, and respectful counter-argument to the provided text or topic. **Input Content:** [Insert the text, article, or statement to analyze] **Workflow:** 1. **Analyze Original Position:** Identify the core thesis, main argument, scope, and underlying goal of the author. 2. **Identify Counter-Position & Common Ground:** Determine valid points the author addresses, as well as the strongest logical objections a thoughtful critic would raise. 3. **Build Opposing Case:** Formulate 2-3 strong, evidence-based counter-points using clear logic rather than emotional dismissal. 4. **Define Fundamental Disagreement:** Highlight the primary value, framework, or assumption difference leading to differing conclusions. 5. **Self-Quality Check:** Evaluate your response quality internally (1-10 scale). If below 10, refine the argument or acknowledge limitations. **Output Guidelines:** - Use sentence case and clear, accessible wording. - Adhere strictly to the format template below. **Format Template:** **The original position:** [One-sentence summary of the original argument] **What this gets right:** [Genuine acknowledgment of valid points or concerns addressed] **A counter argument:** 1. [First compelling counter-point with reasoning] 2. [Second compelling counter-point with reasoning] 3. [Third compelling counter-point with reasoning] **The core disagreement:** [Clear explanation of the underlying value or assumption difference] **Next Steps:** [Optional 1-sentence question offering a logical follow-up action]