Hidden assumptions surface faster
A single model can give a polished answer. A debate makes the answer defend itself.
Single AI gives an answer. AIDeepDebate stress-tests it.
Run a claim through GPT and Claude, then optionally add Gemini as a third perspective. The result is not just a side choice, but a clearer view of assumptions, weak points, and conditions that still need proof.
GPT + Claude cross-checkGemini 3A optionLight / Standard / Premium7-day retention
Why use AIDeepDebate?
A polished answer still needs pressure.
AIDeepDebate is built for decisions where a single confident answer is not enough. It turns a claim into something that has to survive counterarguments.
Counterarguments are built in
Instead of asking for a second opinion manually, the system forces opposing arguments through each stage.
Final synthesis narrows the claim
The result does not simply declare a winner. It shows which version of the claim still survives.
How it works
Built around how you think through a decision, not around a crowded feature list.
Enter a topic and choose the review depth. GPT and Claude pressure-test each other’s reasoning step by step. When needed, add Gemini’s third perspective (3A) to check overlooked decision criteria and evidence that could change the conclusion.
Choose the topic and review depth
Pick Light, Standard, or Premium, then choose 2R or 3R depending on how deep the review should go.
GPT and Claude pressure-test the reasoning
The debate moves through proposal, counterargument, rebuttal, and critique to expose hidden assumptions and unsupported claims.
Add a third perspective when needed
With 3A, Gemini adds another review angle: candidate decision criteria, overlooked risks, and evidence that could overturn the result.
Review the decisive questions
The final synthesis organizes the core issue, strongest arguments, practical risks, and questions that still need verification.
From a quick first-pass review to a deep triad review, AIDeepDebate supports 12 combinations across level, round count, and agent count.
Review depth
One question, 12 ways to review it.
The same startup question is reviewed across Light, Standard, and Premium, with 2R/3R and 2A/3A variants. Compare how the result changes when the debate gets deeper, when Gemini adds a third perspective, and when Premium frontier models are used.
Base question
Should an early-stage startup invest more in product completeness than marketing?
Fast first-pass judgment
Quickly checks the core tension and likely stronger side. In this sample, product completeness held up better, while the acceptable scope of parallel marketing remained uncertain.
Fast judgment + condition check
Adds Gemini as a third perspective to identify boundary conditions such as market timing, cash flow, and competitive pressure.
Low-cost deepening
Adds another round so the debate can narrow what "good enough to sell" means and where marketing feedback becomes useful.
Low-cost deepening + final check
Adds Gemini midpoint/final checks to surface remaining proof gaps and sharper verification questions.
Practical validation baseline
Separates "marketing is useful" from "marketing should come before product completeness" at a more practical decision level.
Practical validation + third perspective
Gemini helps distinguish lightweight market contact from major marketing investment, and checks conditions that could change the conclusion.
Report-level deep review
Three rounds organize stronger claims, weaker claims, hidden assumptions, and what evidence could change the judgment. 3R shows the depth of the pro/con debate.
Report-level deep review + Gemini check
Adds Gemini midpoint/final checks so remaining proof gaps and final judgment criteria are structured more consistently.
Frontier two-agent review
A focused GPT + Claude review. It separates product completeness as repeatable core-value delivery from perfectionism.
Frontier review + Gemini criteria check
Adds Gemini’s third perspective to distinguish demand discovery from broad acquisition and check whether marketing signals become repeat usage.
Deep frontier review
The extra round pressures both sides on minimum product-readiness thresholds, customer exposure, and marketing as a learning tool.
Deep triad review
The deepest translated sample in this ladder, combining frontier debate depth with Gemini checks on decision criteria and reversal evidence.
Product principle
AIDeepDebate does more than pick a side.
It narrows a strong claim into conditions that can actually be defended. The question is not whether marketing is useful. The question is whether it is strong enough to justify investing ahead of product completeness.
Pricing / DDT
Choose depth by decision weight.
Use Light 2R for a quick first-pass check, Standard 3R for report-level structure, and Premium when the decision needs frontier-model critique. Gemini adds a third perspective to the same depth rather than replacing the core debate.
Payment status
International checkout is being prepared separately.
During beta, you can review samples and run Light, Standard, and Premium review flows. Checkout is not open yet; English payment packages will use a separate table because payment fees and package design may differ by region.