name: Debate and Judge
id: debate
source: agentic-patterns.com
description: >
  Two agents take opposing perspectives on the same problem. A third agent
  acts as judge, evaluating arguments and reaching a balanced conclusion.
  Surfaces disagreements and blind spots.
topology: adversarial
communication: structured-exchange
when_to_use:
  - "Need to surface disagreements or competing priorities"
  - "Offense vs defense perspective needed"
  - "Risk assessment where severity is debatable"
  - "Trade-off analysis between security and usability"
  - "Threat modeling with conflicting assumptions"
when_not_to_use:
  - "Clear-cut technical tasks with one right answer"
  - "Time-sensitive issues requiring immediate action"
  - "Tasks where collaboration is more valuable than debate"
pros:
  - "Surfaces hidden assumptions and blind spots"
  - "Thorough coverage of opposing viewpoints"
  - "Forces explicit reasoning and evidence"
cons:
  - "Higher token cost than sequential approaches"
  - "May over-focus on contentious areas"
  - "Requires good judge to synthesize"
estimated_token_cost: high
estimated_agents: "3"
roles_suggested:
  debater_offense: pentester
  debater_defense: auditor
  judge: security_architect
elo_lead_selection: true
