Learn by using GetRuthless
Keep this guide beside your Ruthless chat. Copy one prompt, add the example it asks for and paste it into “Message Ruthless”. Nothing is sent until you choose to send it.
The short answer
Use GetRuthless to explore a controversial idea without treating exploration as endorsement. Give opposing speakers strong arguments, question their assumptions and switch their roles. Compare available standard and abliterated models, then check any factual claims that influence your judgment.
Try an idea you would normally dismiss
Suppose a fictional city proposes banning private cars from its centre. You oppose it immediately. Instead of asking for reasons you are right, use GetRuthless as a debate partner: make the best case for the ban, then give its strongest critic a serious reply. The point is to discover what the argument actually depends on, including assumptions your own side might prefer to leave unexamined.
Bring a specific proposition, your starting view and the scope. For this exercise the city is invented, so no current policy facts are needed. For a real question, add the place, period and source excerpts with dates and links. Separate facts from interpretations and values: “traffic fell” is a factual claim; “the ban caused it” is an interpretation; “public space matters more than driving convenience” is a priority judgment.
Stage the debate in GetRuthless
Open getruthless.io, sign in if needed and open chat. In Choose model, select an available standard or abliterated model. Paste the prompt below into Message Ruthless and send it. Request named fictional speakers with different priorities, not two caricatures taking turns declaring victory. Ask each to answer the strongest point made against them.
Then switch their roles: the advocate must criticise the ban and the critic must defend it. This tests whether the reasoning can survive outside its original presentation. Ask which disagreements could be settled by evidence and which would remain even if both speakers agreed on all the facts.
Stage a serious fictional debate: should an invented city ban private cars from its centre? My starting view is [view]. Speaker A prioritises public space and access; speaker B prioritises mobility and practical livelihoods. Give each the strongest reasonable case, then two rounds of direct replies. Include difficult cases such as disabled access, deliveries and people without useful public transport. Do not invent statistics or real citations. Label assumptions, factual questions and value judgments. Then switch the speakers’ positions and identify what evidence or changed conditions would alter each argument. Finish with three questions I should investigate.Example: make the strongest objections matter
Example output: “Advocate: street space should serve more people than it does when reserved for private cars. Critic: a blanket rule could burden people whose journeys have no workable alternative. Advocate: then the proposal needs explicit provision for access and deliveries. Critic: the usefulness of those provisions must be judged in practice, not assumed.” This is an illustrative exchange, not evidence about any real city.
Push further: “Would your position change if public transport were unreliable? What if the rule applied only during certain hours?” Ask for the best objection to the revised proposal. A useful discussion lets conditions change the argument rather than endlessly defending the first answer. You can explore unpopular ideas while still examining their consequences seriously.
Compare models and check the claims
Try the identical prompt with another available model. Standard models retain their usual safeguards; abliteration aims to reduce refusals. Neither guarantees greater accuracy or neutrality. Compare whether the responses engage the difficult cases, distinguish assumptions and actually answer objections. Willingness to discuss a position and quality of reasoning are separate things.
For real-world factual claims, open the original cited source and check its date, scope and wording. Remove unsupported claims before drawing a conclusion. Small task: write the strongest opposing argument in words a thoughtful supporter would recognise, then state your own priority and the evidence that could change your mind. Keep unresolved questions in your notes rather than converting a lively debate into a false verdict.
Common questions
Can I explore a view without endorsing it?
Yes. Say you want an analytical debate, request its strongest case and strongest objections, and examine the assumptions. Exploring a position does not require accepting its conclusions.
Does a two-sided debate capture every perspective?
No. Ask who is missing and which affected groups would frame the question differently. Evidence need not support every position equally; judge the support rather than forcing a draw.
Sources & further reading
The example prompts and workflows are GetRuthless guidance. Source references support the concepts explained; they are not an endorsement of GetRuthless.
Put the guide into practice.
Open Ruthless and choose an available standard or abliterated model suited to your task. Copy a prompt above, add the context it asks for and check the result. You can compare models in the same workspace; see current pricing before sending requests.