adversarial-debate-protocol

# Adversarial Debate Protocol A formal three-role debate structure ensuring decisions survive rigorous adversarial challenge. The protocol assigns distinct roles (advocate, critic, judge) to prevent confirmation bias and ensure intellectual honesty. ## Stages 1. **Advocate Construction** — Build the strongest possible case for the position under debate 2. **Critic Attack** — Attack the advocate's case from multiple angles with severity ratings 3. **Judge Verdict** — Impartial assessment of advocate case vs critic attacks, rendering ACCEPT/REJECT/REVISE 4. **Iteration** (if REVISE) — Advocate revises case, critic re-attacks, judge re-evaluates ## Available SOPs | SOP | Role | Purpose | |-----|------|---------| | advocate-construction | Advocate | Build strongest case for position | | critic-attack | Critic | Attack the case with rated arguments | | judge-verdict | Judge | Render impartial verdict | ## Execution Guidance - Minimum 2 rounds before accepting ACCEPT verdict - Critic must produce >= 3 distinct attack arguments per round - Judge must address every critic argument explicitly - If judge verdict is REVISE, advocate must address specific weaknesses identified - Maximum 4 rounds before escalating to strategy level ## Minimum Yield - Advocate case with explicit evidence and reasoning - Critic attacks with severity ratings (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) - Judge verdict (ACCEPT/REJECT/REVISE) with point-by-point reasoning - Conditions for acceptance (if ACCEPT) - Required modif...