Remember: LLMs can come up with a robust steelman of whatever you hand them.

We're used to using proxies for argument quality to tell if the underlying argument is solid.

But they'll make whatever you ask them to do look as good as they can, which will likely be better than a human would do.

The way to counter this is structural.

If you ask an LLM to spin up two sub-agents, one to argue the pro and one to argue the con, and then synthesize the strongest answer, they'll do a much better idea.