How to make the disagreement visible

2026-08-19·1 min read

A balanced summary flattens a debate into a list of considerations. Asking the assistant to argue one side properly, then the other, then to name where they actually disagree, produces something you can use: 2 real positions and the point of contact between them.

The problem with a balanced answer is that it hides which claims are contested. Everything is presented as a consideration, and the reader is left without the one thing that would help.

On this page

1. One side at a time, properly
2. Then name the disagreement
3. Separate the factual from the value question
4. Check what neither side says
5. Questions a buyer asks

One side at a time, properly

Ask for the strongest version of a position, written by somebody who holds it. A steelman is more informative than a summary, because it shows what the position rests on rather than what its opponents say about it. Do this once per side, in separate messages.

Then name the disagreement

With both arguments on the table, ask which specific claim the 2 sides disagree about. Most debates turn on 1 or 2 factual questions buried under a lot of rhetoric, and naming them is what turns reading into understanding.

Separate the factual from the value question

Many disagreements are partly about what is true and partly about what matters. Asking the assistant to split the disagreement into the 2 kinds shows which part more evidence could settle, and which part it could not.

Check what neither side says

Ask what a third position would argue, or what both sides take for granted. Shared assumptions are invisible from inside a debate, and they are often where the interesting question is.

Questions a buyer asks

Does this make the assistant biased?

Each message is biased on purpose, and the sequence is not. Asking for advocacy and reading it as advocacy is more honest than a summary that hides which parts are contested.

What if one side is much weaker?

That shows in the steelman, and it shows more credibly than in a balanced summary. A weak strongest-case is real information.

Can I trust the facts in either version?

No more than any other generated text. The method organises a debate; it does not verify it, and specific claims still need checking.

Getting real work done