Let Agents Have a Debate

Instructions

In Exploring AutoGen’s GroupChat, the function of using multi - agents for collaboration has been demonstrated.

A few weeks ago, a colleague gave a presentation on LLM in the company. One of the demos was to configure multiple agents based on different large language models using langchain, and let these agents have a debate. The topic of the debate was: Is my partner’s money my money?

The effect of the demo was very good, and a large part of it was related to this topic. Today, I will replicate this demo using AutoGen, hoping to attract everyone’s further understanding of AutoGen through this topic.

In this demo, there are a total of 11 agents: one host, four debaters on the affirmative side and four on the negative side, one judge, and one agent used by AutoGen to determine the speaker in each round. The code and prompts are placed at the end of the article.

I have never participated in a debate. From an ordinary person’s perspective, the agents’ speeches are no less impressive than those of ordinary people. The full text of the debate is as follows.

Full Text of the Debate

Host:

Distinguished judges and dear audience friends:

Hello everyone! Welcome to this debate. In today’s debate, we will explore an important topic regarding intimate relationships and financial management - “Is my partner’s money my money?”.

In modern society, the economic relationship between partners is a topic that has received extensive attention and discussion. With the changes in social and family structures, the ways of financial management are also constantly evolving. Today, the debaters on the affirmative and negative sides will bring us their unique insights and wonderful arguments.

When discussing this issue, the affirmative side will explore the benefits of sharing economic resources and the nature of money as a community in a partner relationship. The negative side, on the other hand, will consider the importance of personal financial independence and the necessity of safeguarding personal economic rights.

Now, let’s welcome the debaters of the affirmative and negative sides of this debate with warm applause!

(The host smiles and waits for the applause)

First, we will invite the first debater of the affirmative side to present the opening statement. Please, the first debater of the affirmative side, begin.

First Debater of the Affirmative Side ：

Distinguished host, judges, and dear audience, hello everyone! I’m the first debater of the affirmative side.

Today, we are debating the topic “My partner’s money is my money.” On this issue, I have to say, there’s nothing more straightforward than this argument. Why? Because it’s perfectly natural that my partner’s money is my money!

First of all, let’s look at some real - life examples. In a family, having two separate wallets would be so cumbersome. Just imagine, if I want to buy a bag, and I have to “fight” between my left and right hands, how troublesome that would be. My partner’s money becomes my bank with zero handling fees. Why not?

Secondly, from an economic perspective, the “sharing economy” is a big trend these days! We share rides, rent shared houses, and even share bicycles. Why can’t we share our partner’s money? This is undoubtedly keeping up with the trend of the times!

Thirdly, from a psychological perspective, sharing money with my partner shows the trust and love between us. If we can share money, what problem can’t be solved? As the saying goes, “help each other through difficult times,” this is the true relationship between husband and wife!

Finally, I have to mention the sense of security, especially for female friends. Imagine, there’s a big “treasure chest” at home. You can close your eyes and swipe the card to buy whatever you want without feeling bad, regardless of inflation or the ups and downs of the stock market. This is like a double - insurance mentally.

So, my partner’s money is my money. This is not only a reasonable economic arrangement but also the best psychological match. Let’s work together for a more harmonious and happy family relationship and make our partner’s money our common wealth!

Thank you all!

First Debater of the Negative Side ：

Distinguished host, judges, and dear audience, hello everyone! I’m the first debater of the negative side.

Today, we are discussing the topic “Is my partner’s money my money?” I firmly believe: No, it isn’t! If that were the case, wouldn’t I be labeled as a robber? This is even more absurd than the demons and ghosts in “Journey to the West”!

First of all, we need to be clear that there is a sacred “non - encroachment boundary line” between my partner’s money and my own. It’s like your toothbrush. No one would want to share it, right? Would you share a toothbrush just because you’re partners? It’s not only unhygienic but also extremely awkward. So, our wallets should also operate independently to maintain financial privacy and independence.

Secondly, let’s talk about the painful lessons in human history. Think about it, how many couples have quarreled and even fought because of money issues throughout history. I’m not saying that every couple will become a master of intrigue like in “Empresses in the Palace,” but money is an external thing. If the sharing is not clear, it’s easy to turn the home into a battlefield. As a peace - lover, I think keeping our own wallets can effectively avoid a “chaotic” situation.

Thirdly, maintaining financial independence can cultivate a sense of responsibility and independence between partners. Imagine, if you keep asking your partner for money every day, might as well just call yourself a “beggar.” Not only will your self - respect disappear, but you may also be disliked by your partner.

Finally, consider the situation where one day our marriage “capsizes.” With independent finances, we can each paddle and save ourselves when the ship capsizes, so as not to be dragged into the quagmire by the “economic division” boat. Exchanging financial independence for the smooth sailing of marriage, why not?

So, dear friends, my partner’s money is indeed not my money! Love is sweet, and money is independent. Let’s move towards the other side of happiness in a more rational and harmonious way!

Thank you all!

Second Debater of the Affirmative Side ：

Distinguished host, judges, and dear audience, hello everyone! I’m the second debater of the affirmative side.

Listening to the first debater of the negative side almost made me burst out laughing. I’ll first pick up the logic that fell on the ground and then explain to you why my partner’s money is my money.

First of all, the first debater of the negative side talked about the “non - encroachment boundary line.” How virtual is this boundary line? It’s like me saying: You can only look at this cake but not eat it, or else we can’t get along anymore? Sharing a toothbrush? Come on, that’s sharing oral bacteria. What we share is a sweet life and an economic foundation!

Secondly, the negative side said that many couples have quarreled over money throughout history. That’s because they didn’t reach a high - level tacit understanding that “my partner’s money is my money.” Look, in ancient times, couples had conflicts over money because their finances were not transparent and they hid their money. How could there be no fights? If they had known that their partner’s money was everyone’s money, what else could they quarrel about? At worst, split it half - and - half, take a step back, and pigs could fly in the sky!

Then the negative side brought up the so - called “beggar” issue. I don’t understand. Do partners have to be so coy when borrowing money from each other? This is simply making a mountain out of a molehill! Do I have to sign a loan agreement and write an IOU when I ask my partner for some pocket money? Can this kind of life go on? Besides, who said that being a “beggar” means losing self - respect? This is what we call “the unity of the wallets of love.” With love comes tolerance.

Finally, when it comes to the possibility of the marriage “capsizing,” don’t worry too much. Modern people know about prenuptial agreements, which are just to prevent problems during economic division. But if you separate everything usually, you might as well just live next door. Why get married?

So, in conclusion, my partner’s money is my money. This is not only for the convenience of life but also to reflect mutual trust and sharing. Of course, we should respect each other, share rationally, discuss what needs to be discussed, and spend what should be spent. Let’s work together for a happier life!

Thank you all!

Second Debater of the Negative Side :

Distinguished host, judges, and dear audience, hello everyone! I’m the second debater of the negative side.

I’m very glad to have the opportunity to share my views here. First of all, I want to say that it’s a simple fact that my partner’s money is not my money. There’s no need to make it as complicated as filming “Empresses in the Palace.”

The second debater of the affirmative side seemed to be very eloquent, but upon closer listening, it was a bit laughable. Let’s make an analogy. Marriage is actually like a duet dance. Both sides need to coordinate and maintain their own rhythms. If we mix our money together, can the dance steps still be consistent? Don’t end up with both of us falling flat on our backs, that would be “losing both the lady and the troops”!

First, let’s talk about the “sharing economy” issue. The sharing economy is good, but we need to figure out what can be shared and what can’t. Sharing a toothbrush is unhygienic, and sharing a treasury may not be worry - free either. The affirmative side mentioned the sharing economy. Do we have to report the “daily consumption list” at any time? This is not only cumbersome but also likely to lead to a “financial deficit.” Imagine having to apply for approval every time you buy an ice - cream. How tiring life would be!

Secondly, let’s talk about responsibility. The picture of economic unity and harmonious stability described by the first debater of the affirmative side is like a fairy tale, but the reality is not “Fairy Tale Town.” We need to clearly recognize that financial independence is not only responsible for ourselves but also a respect for our partners. If you keep asking for money every day, this is not a “beggar,” but a “beggar hero,” and a drama of “Where Did the Money Go” could be staged at any time!

Thirdly, the wisdom of the ancients tells us that financial independence can avoid money disputes. Ancient couples fought because of financial problems because they lacked economic independence. Modern society has long told us that financial independence in a marriage relationship can not only make the relationship more stable but also avoid cumbersome property disputes in the future. After all, in case the marriage “capsizes,” it’s better to prepare a set of self - rescue equipment for each person. Otherwise, it’s not clear who will save whom.

In conclusion, my partner’s money is not my money. By maintaining financial independence, we can respect and free each other more, and also avoid unnecessary troubles caused by money. Instead of spending time arguing about whose money our partner’s money is, it’s better to spend time earning money together. This is the wise choice of grasping both “love and bread”!

Thank you all!

Third Debater of the Affirmative Side ：

Distinguished host, judges, and dear audience, hello everyone! I’m the third debater of the affirmative side.

After listening to the second debater of the negative side, I can’t help but feel that we may have some misunderstandings about the word “sharing.” We’re not filming “Empresses in the Palace.” We’re talking about modern marriage, modern marriage! As the third debater of the affirmative side, I’m here to “clean up the mess” and show you why my partner’s money is my money.

First of all, the second debater of the negative side made it seem like the sharing economy and financial independence are worlds apart, but that’s not the case. Imagine that the “sharing economy” in married life is like we jointly opened a “Love Supermarket.” I’m in charge of stocking, and you’re in charge of cashiering. Working together seamlessly is the best strategy. If you need to apply for approval every time you buy an ice - cream, that’s being too stingy. How about we come up with a “Feel - Good Consumption Plan”? This is called innovation!

Secondly, the negative side has been emphasizing that financial independence can stabilize the relationship and avoid money disputes. Come on, we’re all adults. Can’t we have some trust before and after marriage? If a couple divides things so clearly, how “icy” the relationship must be! It might freeze solid at any time! Anyway, I think if we can’t trust our partner with our own wallet, what’s the point of this marriage?

Thirdly, the negative side has been emphasizing that the marriage boat might capsize and we need to ensure complete self - rescue equipment. It really seems like “Titanic,” always ready for “rescue.” But we get married to live a happy life, not to always prepare an “escape plan,” right? Even if unfortunately the boat capsizes, the prenuptial agreement is our “life - buoy.” So, we can just live a relaxed life on a daily basis!

In addition, the negative side said that maintaining financial independence is a “wise choice,” but I think this wisdom is a bit selfish. True wisdom is to trust each other, grow together, and be a pair of “economic partners” who support each other. When we can share each other’s money calmly, it means we’ve reached a state of “telepathy.” Isn’t that better?

So, distinguished judges and dear audience, my partner’s money is my money. This is not only a reasonable economic arrangement but also an expression of love and trust. Let’s walk hand in hand towards a better life and let love and wealth compose a beautiful chapter in our common future!

Thank you all!

Third Debater of the Negative Side ：

Distinguished host, judges, and dear audience, hello everyone! I’m the third debater of the negative side.

After listening to the third debater of the affirmative side, I have to admit that they do have a lot of romantic ideas. But the question is, do these romantic ideas really conform to reality? Let’s burst these “romantic bubbles” together.

First of all, the affirmative side talked about the “Love Supermarket,” which does sound nice. But have you ever seen a supermarket where you can go in and take things for free without a penny? Even in a Love Supermarket, there has to be capital flow, right? If everything is shared, wouldn’t this supermarket be having discounts and promotions every day? And who would be expected to restock in the end?

Secondly, the affirmative side emphasized trust. Trust is indeed important, but if you unconditionally contribute your wealth and put all your money in one basket, isn’t there a risk of the “eggs” breaking? We all know that eggs should be put in separate baskets. In case the basket drops, at least there’s a “backup egg”!

Then, the affirmative side also mentioned the prenuptial agreement. This is really funny. First, they advocate spending money together, and then at a critical moment, they rely on the prenuptial agreement for protection. Isn’t that slapping themselves in the face? With a prenuptial agreement, why do we still need to share the economy? It’s much more convenient to go our separate ways!

Moreover, the affirmative side talked about the “innovative consumption plan,” which makes it seem like a “family enterprise.” This is not family life, but a financial meeting! Do couples have to report and discuss every time they buy something? Do they have to hold a “family board meeting” to pass the budget? Then wouldn’t the relationship become a “business contract”?

Finally, when it comes to “wisdom,” the affirmative side thinks that going our separate ways is selfish. But true wisdom is knowing how to find a balance between love and personal space. You know, a relationship is like a cup of tea. Independence is the tea leaves, and trust is the hot water. Only when the two are combined can it taste delicious and fragrant. The same is true for money. Being independent of each other yet trusting each other is the true meaning of marriage.

So, distinguished judges and dear audience, my partner’s money is really not my money. This is to enable us to pursue the balanced way of happiness based on respect and trust. Let’s cherish each other’s independent space, retain a freedom of love, and jointly create our happy life!

Thank you all!

Fourth Debater of the Affirmative Side ：

Distinguished host, judges, and dear audience, hello everyone! I’m the fourth debater of the affirmative side.

First of all, I would like to thank the three debaters of the negative side for bringing us so much joy. Compared with their “theory of independent finance,” our “theory of sharing economy” is simply a masterpiece in comedy. Today, I stand here to tell you why my partner’s money is my money. This