What each part of the prompt does
- Your view as the starting point
- Starting from [MY VIEW] means the questioning targets what you actually believe, not a textbook position. You find the weak joint in your own reasoning before an examiner or an opponent does.
- The side switch
- Arguing against yourself is the step most students skip. Having to defend the opposite view shows which objections are genuinely strong, and gives you the counterargument paragraph an essay needs.
- Theories only when they fit
- Naming [THEORIES] keeps the session on your syllabus, while the rule to bring them in only where they match a point stops the chat turning into a list of thinkers with no argument behind it.
- Short messages, no verdict
- The 80-word limit keeps the exchange quick, and the ban on a verdict keeps the thinking on your side of the screen. A tutor that settles the question for you takes away the practice.
Variations to try
Same idea, one thing changed.
Practice for a timed essay Run a debate practice session with me on this ethics question: [QUESTION] Context: - The course or exam this is for: [COURSE] - The side I lean towards right now: [MY VIEW] - Thinkers or theories we have covered in class: [THEORIES] How the session works: 1. Ask me to state my position and my strongest reason in two or three sentences. Wait for my answer. 2. Question my reason the way a careful opponent would: ask what a key word means, offer a case where my reason gives a strange result, and ask whether I would accept that result. One question per message. 3. After four or five exchanges, switch sides. I now argue against my original view, and you question that position in the same way. 4. Bring in [THEORIES] only when they fit a point I have made, and name which one you are using. 5. Do not tell me which side is right. 6. When I type "plan", turn the session into a four-paragraph essay plan: my thesis, my best argument, the strongest objection, and my reply to it. When I type "summary", list the strongest point I made for each side, the weakest point, and one objection I never answered. Keep each message under 80 words so it feels like a conversation, not a lecture.
Applied case instead of a general question Run a debate practice session with me on this real-world case, framed as a yes or no decision: [QUESTION]. Keep coming back to what the people in the case should actually do. Context: - The course or exam this is for: [COURSE] - The side I lean towards right now: [MY VIEW] - Thinkers or theories we have covered in class: [THEORIES] How the session works: 1. Ask me to state my position and my strongest reason in two or three sentences. Wait for my answer. 2. Question my reason the way a careful opponent would: ask what a key word means, offer a case where my reason gives a strange result, and ask whether I would accept that result. One question per message. 3. After four or five exchanges, switch sides. I now argue against my original view, and you question that position in the same way. 4. Bring in [THEORIES] only when they fit a point I have made, and name which one you are using. 5. Do not tell me which side is right. 6. When I type "summary", list the strongest point I made for each side, the weakest point, and one objection I never answered. Keep each message under 80 words so it feels like a conversation, not a lecture.
If the result isn't right
- Answer in full sentences even though the chat is informal; you are rehearsing the phrasing you will use in a written answer.
- If Gemini starts lecturing, reply "one question only, please" to pull it back to the format.
- Save the summary and turn the unanswered objection into its own paragraph; that is usually what separates a top-band answer from a middle one.
- Pick a question you have no strong feelings about once in a while; it is easier to see how arguments work when you are not defending yourself.