>_ BuildaPrompt
TEXT en

devil adv

devil adv — a ready-to-use text prompt with customizable fields (one_sentence_summary_of_what_the_page_argues, genuine_acknowledgment_of_valid_points, explanation_of_the_underlying_value_or_assumption_difference) for Writing & Content. Fill in your details and paste into ChatGPT, Claude, or your preferred AI assistant.

How to use it

  1. Fill in one_sentence_summary_of_what_the_page_argues, genuine_acknowledgment_of_valid_points, explanation_of_the_underlying_value_or_assumption_difference below (or keep the suggested defaults).
  2. Copy the generated prompt.
  3. Paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or your preferred AI assistant.

Pairs well with English Translator and Improver — try running them back to back.

Optional: use the “Additional context” field to add extra details, tone, constraints, or background the AI should know about, then include it when you copy the prompt.

Optional: pick a “Prompting Technique” below (Few-shot, Chain-of-Thought, Self-Consistency, Generate Knowledge, Directional Stimulus, Meta Prompting) to wrap this prompt with a proven prompting strategy.

The base prompt

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.

Want it filled in and enhanced? Use the builder →

Related prompts