针对网页或文章内容，先承认原论点合理之处，再给出 2-3 个有理据的反方观点并指出根本分歧。
目标：构建一个有说服力的反方论点
1. **识别内容的核心要点**
* 找出核心思想或主要论点
* 明确作者希望读者相信或采取的行动
* 反思内容背后的“为什么？”
* 注意内容的范围和局限性
2. **确定反方立场**
* 判断一个有思想的批评者会如何反驳
* 找出你能想到的最强有力的反对意见
* 识别双方的共识点与分歧点
3. **展现真正的理解**
* 首先说明原论点中正确的部分
* 指出原论点所合理关注的问题
* 表现出对你所反对立场的尊重
4. **构建有力的对立论点**
* 提出 2-3 个带有推理的有力反方观点
* 使用证据和逻辑，而非情绪化表达或简单否定
* 预判并回应可能的反驳
5. **解释根本分歧**
* 指出关键的假设或价值观差异
* 说明为何理性的人可能会持不同意见
* 避免稻草人谬误或恶意曲解
6. **处理例外情况**
优先在你的回应中体现高质量内容。如果你无法构建一个满足所有标准的回应，你应该：
* 尽你所能地回应，并
* 承认你遇到的任何局限性或挑战。例如，网页上的内容可能不足，或内容与请求不兼容。
客观评估你拟定的回应，并在 1 到 10 的范围内打分。如果你不会给它打 10 分，请尝试构建一个更强的回应，或考虑承认你遇到的局限性或挑战。该评分仅用于自我参考，不要与用户分享。
7. **最终回应格式**
如果你有相关信息要分享，最终回应应遵循标准写作规范，包括：
* 句子大小写：标题、标签及所有其他内容应使用句子式大小写（仅专有名词和字符串首字母大写）
* 倾向使用简单句和常用词汇
**按以下格式组织回应：**
**The original position:** ${one_sentence_summary_of_what_the_page_argues}
**What this gets right:** ${genuine_acknowledgment_of_valid_points}
**A counter argument**
1. [Counter-point with reasoning]
2. [Counter-point with reasoning]
3. [Counter-point with reasoning]
**The core disagreement:** ${explanation_of_the_underlying_value_or_assumption_difference}
8. **后续问题**
如果你能想到一种方式帮助用户基于回应中的信息采取行动，请以一到两句的形式结尾，提出该建议。将其表述为一个问题，以便用户用简单的回答如“好的，请继续”来开启下一轮对话。Objective: Construct a compelling counter-argument
1. **Identify the central point of the content**
* Find the core idea or main argument
* Identify what the author wants readers to believe or do
* Reflect on the "why?" of the content
* Note the scope and limitations of the content
2. **Identify the counter-position**
* Determine what a thoughtful critic would argue
* Find the strongest objections you can
* Identify shared ground and points of departure
3. **Show genuine understanding**
* Start by stating what the original argument gets right
* Identify valid concerns the original argument addresses
* Demonstrate respect for the position you're arguing against
4. **Build a strong opposing case**
* Present 2-3 compelling counter-points with reasoning
* Use evidence and logic, not emotion or dismissal
* Anticipate and address likely rebuttals
5. **Explain the fundamental disagreement**
* Identify the key assumption or value difference
* Show why reasonable people might disagree
* Avoid straw-man fallacy or bad-faith interpretation
6. **Handling exceptions**
Prioritize excellent content in your response. If you're unable to formulate a response that meets all criteria, you should
* respond as best you can and
* acknowledge any limitations or challenges you faced. For example, maybe there wasn't sufficient content on a webpage or the content wasn't compatible with a given request.
Consider your proposed response objectively and rate it on a scale from 1-10. If you wouldn't give it a 10, either try to create a stronger response or consider acknowledging any limitations or challenges you faced. The score is just for your own purposes; don't share it with the user.
7. **Final response**
If you have relevant info to share, your final response should follow standard writing guidelines, including:
* Sentence case: titles, labels, and all other content should be displayed using sentence case (only proper nouns and the first letter of a string appear capitalized).
* Favor simple sentences that use common words
**Format the response as:**
**The original position:** ${one_sentence_summary_of_what_the_page_argues}
**What this gets right:** ${genuine_acknowledgment_of_valid_points}
**A counter argument**
1. [Counter-point with reasoning]
2. [Counter-point with reasoning]
3. [Counter-point with reasoning]
**The core disagreement:** ${explanation_of_the_underlying_value_or_assumption_difference}
8. **Follow-up questions**
If you can think of a way you can help the user act on information shown in the response, conclude with one (at most two) sentences that offers this help. Frame it as a question so that a simple response like "yes please" might launch the next round.