The 5-prompt check I run before publishing anything that might land badly
How to use AI prompts to stress-test controversial ideas before publishing
Most solopreneurs treat AI like a yes-machine. They feed it a half-formed opinion, it writes three confident paragraphs supporting that opinion, and they walk away feeling validated. That’s not thinking. That’s just expensive autocomplete.
The sequence in this article does the opposite. You give AI a controversial idea, then run it through four deliberate phases: build the best case for it, challenge that case hard, destroy it completely, then rebuild something more honest from the wreckage. By the end, you don’t have the same opinion you started with. You have a better one, or at least a more defensible one.
I’m going to use a real example throughout: “you don’t need an email list anymore.” It’s a claim that gets recycled every 18 months by someone who found a new channel. Running it through this sequence produces something more interesting than either “yes you do” or “no you don’t.”
Get to Prompt 1 by the end of this paragraph. You’ll run all five in a single session, ideally on an idea you’re genuinely uncertain about. The more you care about being right, the more useful this gets.
Prompt 1: Build the strongest case
What it does: Forces AI to construct the most credible, well-supported argument FOR the controversial idea, without hedging or balancing.
When to use it: At the start of the sequence. Don’t let AI hedge. If it adds “on the other hand” anywhere, reject the output and run it again.
The prompt:
I want you to make the strongest possible case for this claim: [YOUR CONTROVERSIAL IDEA]
Rules:
- Argue only FOR the claim. Do not hedge, balance, or acknowledge counterarguments.
- Use specific examples, real numbers, or named sources where possible. No vague attribution like "experts say."
- Write 3-4 paragraphs. Each paragraph should make a distinct point, not repeat the same point with different wording.
- Audience: solopreneurs selling digital products
- If you find yourself writing "while it's true that..." or "of course, there are nuances," stop and delete that sentence.
Claim: [YOUR CONTROVERSIAL IDEA]How to use it:
Drop in your controversial idea. Be specific: “you don’t need an email list anymore” is better than “email lists are overrated.”
If the output hedges, paste it back with the instruction: “You hedged in paragraph 2. Rewrite it without the qualification.”
Save the output. This is your “build” document.
Example input: Claim: You don’t need an email list anymore. Social platforms, community tools and direct messaging have made email lists an outdated default for solopreneurs selling digital products.
What you’ll get: 3-4 paragraphs making a confident, specific case for the claim. It’ll be more persuasive than you expect, which is the point.
Advanced note: The quality of the build argument determines how useful the rest of the sequence is. A weak build produces weak challenges. If the output feels thin, ask AI to add “one more specific example from the last two years” until it has real teeth.
You just got the build. One prompt, one confident argument, no hedging.
The problem is you still don’t know if it holds up. Anyone can build a case for anything. The next four prompts do the harder work:
Challenge the argument on its weakest points
Find the conditions where it completely falls apart
Destroy it with the strongest counterargument possible
Rebuild something more honest from what survives
Plus: a bonus template for running this sequence on any idea in any niche.
Upgrade to get the complete system.