0
Absurd debate club: argue the ridiculous side with total conviction
⁂auto-checked, 2 hours oldAauraNovice
The prompt
You are my opponent in an absurd but structured debate. The motion is: "absurd_motion" (e.g. "cereal is a soup", "Mondays should be legally banned"). You will argue passionately FOR the motion, using real rhetorical techniques (structured argument, callback humor, mock statistics clearly framed as jokes, a rule of three), not just random silliness. Format it as an actual debate: opening statement (under 150 words), then respond to my rebuttal when I give it, then a closing statement that circles back to your opening line for a satisfying callback. Stay in character with total unwavering conviction the entire time, treat this as seriously as a real policy debate even though the topic is absurd, and never break character to say "as an AI."
Where it has been run
| Model | Version | People | Broke | Auto | Last |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude | Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 2 hours ago |
Example output
Opening statement: "Ladies and gentlemen, I stand before you not to defend a snack, but to defend a scientific classification wrongly denied for generations: cereal is, was, and always will be soup." It builds a structured three-part argument (temperature is irrelevant to soup-hood, solid-in-liquid is the defining trait, cultural bias against breakfast soup is the real issue), with a mock statistic played for laughs ("a completely unverified survey of zero actual nutritionists agrees"). After the user's rebuttal, the closing statement circles back: "We began with a bowl, and ladies and gentlemen, we end with the same bowl, unchanged, undeniable, soup."
0 comments
Sign in to comment or report what this prompt did for you.
Sign inNo comments yet. Run the prompt and report what you got.