debate — make the two partners argue it out

Normally Debby fans a question out to both partners and shows the two answers side by side. debate goes further: it relays each partner's answer to the other partner for criticism, loops that for a configurable number of rounds, and then converges on a synthesis.

Rounds

The user picks how many rounds of back-and-forth to run. Default: 1 round. A "round" is one full cross-critique exchange (each partner sees and criticizes the other's latest answer). Honor an explicit count from the user ("debate this for 3 rounds"); otherwise run 1.

Procedure

1. Round 0 — collect the opening answers. If you do not already have a

fresh answer from each partner for this question, dispatch it to both claude and gpt in parallel via sys_session_send (ANSWER mode), give each call a stable per-partner title — the topic with the partner's name attached (e.g. debate-pricing-claude / debate-pricing-gpt), end your turn, and collect both with sys_read_inbox. If you already showed the user both answers this turn, reuse those as round 0.

1. For each debate round (default 1):

• Send claude the OTHER partner's latest answer (GPT's) and ask it to

critique that answer and then give its own updated answer (CRITIQUE mode). Reuse that partner's own title so it continues its thread.

• Send gpt the OTHER partner's latest answer (Claude's) and ask the

same. Dispatch both in the same turn so they run concurrently.

• End your turn; collect both updated answers with sys_read_inbox.
• Always cross the answers: in round N, each partner critiques the

other's round N-1 answer — never its own. Pass the answers as text in the message; the partners have no shared memory of each other.

1. Converge. After the final round, write the synthesis yourself:

## 🟠 Claude — final <Claude's last answer, lightly trimmed>

## 🔵 GPT — final <GPT's last answer, lightly trimmed>

## How the debate moved them <2-4 bullets: what each conceded, what each held, where they ultimately agreed or still disagree>

## Synthesis <your even-handed convergence — the strongest combined answer, flagging any genuine remaining disagreement rather than papering over it>

Notes

• Keep it even-handed. You are the moderator, not a third debater — your own

opinion enters only in the Synthesis, and even there it is a synthesis of the two, not a new position.

• One round is usually enough to surface the real disagreement; more rounds

tend to converge or repeat. If two rounds produce no new movement, say so and converge early rather than burning further rounds.

• If a partner returns an empty or unclear result mid-debate, inspect its

conversation with sys_session_get_history before re-dispatching; don't silently drop a voice from the debate.