Can LLMs Beat Humans in Debating? A Dynamic Multi-agent Framework for Competitive Debate
Competitive debate is a complex task of computational argumentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and lack competitiveness in this field. To address these challenges, we introduce Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate), a dynamic multi-agent framework based on LLMs designed to enhance their capabilities in competitive debate. Drawing inspiration from human behavior in debate preparation and execution, Agent4Debate employs a collaborative architecture where four specialized agents, involving Searcher, Analyzer, Writer, and Reviewer, dynamically interact and cooperate. These agents work throughout the debate process, covering multiple stages from initial research and argument formulation to rebuttal and summary. To comprehensively evaluate framework performance, we construct the Competitive Debate Arena, comprising 66 carefully selected Chinese debate motions. We recruit ten experienced human debaters and collect records of 200 debates involving Agent4Debate, baseline models, and humans. The evaluation employs the Debatrix automatic scoring system and professional human reviewers based on the established Debatrix-Elo and Human-Elo ranking. Experimental results indicate that the state-of-the-art Agent4Debate exhibits capabilities comparable to those of humans. Furthermore, ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in the agent structure.
Code (1)
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Limits of Large Language Models in Debating Humans
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in communicating with humans. Their potential use as artificial partners with humans in sociological experiments involving conversation is an exciting prospect. …
Advances in Debating Technologies: Building AI That Can Debate Humans
The tutorial focuses on Debating Technologies, a sub-field of computational argumentation defined as {``}computational technologies developed directly to enhance, support, and engage with human debating{''} (Gurevych et …
Argument MiningStance ClassificationShould we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) underscore their potential for responding to inquiries in various domains. However, ensuring that generative agents provide accurate and reliable answers remains an ong…
BenchmarkingTurQUaz at CheckThat! 2025: Debating Large Language Models for Scientific Web Discourse Detection
In this paper, we present our work developed for the scientific web discourse detection task (Task 4a) of CheckThat! 2025. We propose a novel council debate method that simulates structured academic discussions among mul…
Persona-Assigned Large Language Models Exhibit Human-Like Motivated Reasoning
Reasoning in humans is prone to biases due to underlying motivations like identity protection, that undermine rational decision-making and judgment. This motivated reasoning at a collective level can be detrimental to so…
Misinformation