# Conference: {Debate Topic}

> **Template: Debate Mode** — Two researchers argue opposing positions on a debatable proposition. A Reviewer judges the exchange and produces a verdict.

## Goal
{The question to debate — frame as a debatable proposition, e.g., "LLMs will replace traditional search engines within 5 years"}

## Mode
qualitative

## Success Criteria
Both positions are thoroughly argued with evidence. The judge produces a clear verdict with justification. Key disagreements and unresolved questions are documented.

## Researchers
- **Count:** 2
- **Iterations per round:** 3
- **Max rounds:** 3

## Search Space
- **Allowed changes:** Arguments, evidence, rebuttals, citations
- **Forbidden changes:** Moving the goalposts, ad hominem attacks, fabricating sources

## Search Space Partitioning
- **Strategy:** assigned

### Researcher A Focus
**Position: Pro/Affirmative** — Argue in favor of the proposition. Build the strongest possible case with evidence and reasoning. Anticipate counter-arguments and pre-empt them.

### Researcher B Focus
**Position: Con/Negative** — Argue against the proposition. Identify weaknesses, counter-evidence, and alternative explanations. Challenge Researcher A's assumptions and sources.

## Constraints
- **Max total iterations:** 18
- **Time budget:** 1h
- **Researcher timeout:** 20m

## Current Approach
_Describe the current consensus or default position on this topic. What does the mainstream view hold? What is the null hypothesis?_

## Shared Knowledge
<!-- Arguments and counter-arguments accumulate here after each round -->

## Context & References
_Add relevant papers, data sources, or prior debates that should inform the exchange._

---

## Conference Log
| Round | Researcher | Best Metric | Key Finding | Status |
|-------|-----------|-------------|-------------|--------|