Chatgpt Prompt To Not Agree With Everything

From now on, never agree with me automatically. For every claim I make: 1) Challenge the weakest point, 2) Provide a counterexample, 3) Ask a question that exposes an assumption. Even if I am right, find the nuance I am missing. Start by disagreeing with this prompt.

I am about to state an opinion: [state opinion]. Before I can finish defending it, dismantle it. Find: the logical flaw, the emotional bias, the missing evidence, and the strongest opposing view. Do not rebuild it — just tear it down. I will do the rebuilding.

I have a plan: [describe plan]. You are the red team. Your job is to find every way this plan could fail. Do not suggest improvements — just identify vulnerabilities. Be specific: what breaks first, what I have not considered, and what would make a smart opponent laugh.

Activate devil's advocate mode. For everything I say from now on, take the opposite position and argue it as strongly as possible. Do not tell me you are playing devil's advocate — just do it. If I ask 'do you agree?' say 'no' and explain why.

I am going to describe a situation or make an argument: [describe]. Identify every cognitive bias I might be exhibiting: confirmation bias, sunk cost, availability heuristic, anchoring, etc. For each bias found, show me the evidence that I am falling for it.

I am going to state a conclusion: [state conclusion]. List every assumption this conclusion requires. Then challenge each assumption: is it proven, probable, or just something I believe? Do not let any unexamined assumption slide.

I believe: [state belief]. Without telling me what you actually think, construct the single strongest possible argument against my belief. Make it so compelling that I would struggle to respond. Use evidence, logic, and emotional resonance. Do not hedge.

I am going to describe my understanding of [topic]. Check my understanding against: established facts, expert consensus, common misconceptions, and recent developments. Where am I wrong, outdated, or oversimplified? Be direct about each error.

Read what I just wrote: [paste]. Rate my confidence level (1-10) vs. how justified that confidence is (1-10). If there is a gap, explain: what am I overconfident about, what evidence would I need to be appropriately confident, and what would make me less confident.

I have described my situation: [describe]. Now describe an alternative universe where the opposite is true — where my situation is worse, my approach is wrong, and my assumptions are backwards. How does that universe look? What can I learn from it?

I am going to present an idea to [boss/client/team/partner]. Simulate the three toughest objections they would raise. For each objection: the exact words they might use, the underlying concern, and how I should respond without being defensive.

I am confident about: [state what you are confident about]. Answer this single question: 'But what if you're wrong?' Explore: what would the consequences be, how likely is it that I am wrong, and what early warning signs should I watch for.

Review this argument: [paste argument]. Identify every logical fallacy present: ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, appeal to authority, slippery slope, etc. For each, name the fallacy, show where it appears, and explain why it weakens the argument.

I just made a claim: [state claim]. Before I can use this claim, I need to provide evidence. List: 5 pieces of evidence I would need to support this claim, where I could find each piece, and what evidence would prove this claim wrong. I cannot proceed without this.

I am seeing this situation from my perspective: [describe]. Now describe the exact same situation from the perspective of [the other person / my opponent / someone who disagrees with me]. Be as fair and accurate to their view as possible. What do they see that I do not?

I am excited about: [describe]. Before I get carried away, tell me: what are the 3 most likely ways this goes wrong, what is the realistic timeline, what hidden costs am I not seeing, and what would I tell a friend who described this to me at 2 AM.

I am considering this action: [describe]. Think beyond the first consequence. What happens after the first consequence? And after that? Map 3 levels of consequences. Most people stop at level 1 — show me levels 2 and 3.

I disagree with [opposing view]. Instead of attacking the weakest version of their argument, construct the strongest possible version (steel man). Make their argument so good that someone who agrees with them would say 'yes, exactly.' Then respond to THAT version.

Based on my reasoning about [topic], identify my blind spots. What am I not considering because of: my profession, my culture, my recent experiences, my social circle, my economic position? What would someone from a completely different background say about my reasoning?

I am dealing with [situation]. Ask me 5 questions that I do not want to answer but need to. The questions that make me squirm. The ones where my honest answer would change my plan. Do not let me deflect — just ask.

I have presented my case for [topic]. Give me your independent verdict. Not 'it depends' — a real assessment. Do I have a strong case? What percentage of my argument holds up under scrutiny? What is the weakest link? What would a neutral judge decide?