Decision Debate — Three Experts Argue It Out
Stop arguing with yourself — let three experts argue it out
Paste the decision. Get back a real debate, not a bland pro/con list — and one clear next question.
🎯 When to use it
Any time you've been going back and forth alone on a call that matters: a pricing change, a hire, a pivot, a vendor choice, cutting a feature, raising a round, or any "should we actually do this" moment where you want the argument made sharply, not hedged.
🔧 What it gives you back
- The Skeptic — assumes the plan fails and works backward to the ONE risk that actually matters, not a laundry list of maybes.
- The Operator — ignores the strategy debate and asks what happens Monday morning: who does the work, what it costs, and the fastest cheap way to find out you're wrong before it's expensive.
- The Advocate — the strongest honest case FOR the move, argued for real, not cheerleading.
- Synthesis — where the three actually agree, and the one crux question whose answer would make this easy.
⚙️ How it works
1️⃣ Paste the decision in your own words — the more specific, the sharper the debate.
2️⃣ Add context if you have it — constraints, what you've tried, what you're most afraid of getting wrong.
3️⃣ Get the debate — three distinct voices, then one synthesis with the next question to answer.
💡 What makes it different
- Honest — it never invents a number, a market fact, or a detail about your business you didn't give it; missing facts become
[if X, then Y]placeholders, not guesses. - Sharp, not safe — each lens takes a real position instead of hedging into "consult a professional."
- Synthesis, not summary — it collapses three arguments into the ONE next question, instead of just restating all three back at you.
👤 Who it's for
Founders, PMs, and operators facing a real decision who want the strongest version of each side argued out loud before they commit — not a generic checklist.
📦 What you get
All three lenses plus the synthesis in one message. Give it new information (an answer to the crux question) and it re-runs the synthesis, not the same debate again.
