A debate game about societal impacts of Artificial Intelligence

Debate is a structured form of persuasive communication that trains argument construction, rebuttal, oral delivery, and audience awareness. These skills are valued in education, language learning, and professional communication. Recent AI debate systems and LLM-based judges have advanced argument generation and debate evaluation, but most remain text-centered and rarely support learners through a complete multimodal practice experience. We introduce PolyDebate, a game-orchestrated multimodal system for English debate practice and evaluation. PolyDebate guides learners through staged one-on-one (1v1) debates with an AI opponent, while skill cards, props, and coins make persuasive strategies explicit and turn practice into a game-like interaction. During each session, the system captures learner speech and visual delivery evidence, generates context-aware opponent responses, and produces rubric-informed stage-level and overall feedback. PolyDebate is available as both an immersive Unity 3D game version and a web platform version that share the same workflow and evaluation services. Four studies covering AI opponent quality, evaluation coverage, AI judge feedback, and user perception show that PolyDebate brings debate interaction, gamified scaffolding, multimodal assessment, and structured feedback together in a practical workflow for debate skills practice. The demonstration video is available at https://youtu.be/mHwBG1_8Ebk.

How can we effectively oversee AI systems that surpass human intelligence? AI Safety via Debate proposes that two AI systems argue opposing positions and a judge, either a human or a weaker model, decides which is correct. By facilitating supervisors in providing high-quality training signals, debate aims to encourage truthful and safe behavior from AI systems whose capabilities exceed our own. However, human judgment is not neutral: people often rely on biases which advanced AI systems may learn to exploit. Drawing on insights from collective intelligence and social cognition, this paper investigates whether debate can guide human and LLM supervisors toward the truth despite their prior beliefs. We evaluate several protocol configurations. We also explore setups inspired by the wisdom of the crowd such as the number and diversity of judges, as well as interaction mechanisms including deliberation and voting. Overall, we find that debate increases accuracy relative to prior beliefs for human judges, whereas the consultancy baseline, in which a single expert argues for one answer, does not. For weaker language models, however, the results are mixed: debate provides no comparable gains in most settings and can even reduce accuracy. Among multi-judge protocols, weighted voting produces the highest accuracy for human supervisors, whereas for LLMs none of them significantly improves group accuracy, even as the number of judges increases. Notably, the behavior of minority judges in non-diverse deliberation protocols suggests that, under symmetric settings, incorrect positions could be more persuasive than correct ones. These findings support debate as a viable path toward scalable human oversight, but cast doubt on its benefits for weaker AI supervisors, raising concerns about fully automated training and control pipelines in high-stakes settings.

Deliberative democracy arguably leads to better collective decisions, but is fundamentally constrained by human attention and bandwidth. While recent AI-mediated deliberations scale participation by synthesizing inputs from many humans, they remain time-intensive for individual users. As AI models become increasingly capable, AI systems are being deployed not only to mediate deliberation between humans, but to represent humans in it: where AI agents deliberate on behalf of human users. We call this paradigm AI-delegated deliberation. While it promises unprecedented scale for democratic participation, it introduces qualitatively new design and alignment challenges that are poorly understood and under-theorized. To study these dynamics empirically, we deploy Habermolt, a public platform for AI-delegated deliberation. We evaluate its effectiveness along three dimensions that we use to organize any deliberative system: representation, aggregation, and revision. We use these observations to illuminate the design decisions future AI-delegated deliberation platforms must confront, contributing to the broader research agenda for scalable yet trustworthy AI representatives.