Do LLM Debates Repeat Arguments Differently Across Languages?

As LLMs are increasingly used to draft publicfacing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,381 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human subarguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses. Finally, human-preference evaluators favor both common arguments and LLM essays, which could reinforce argument collapse.

Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before producing an answer, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagreement. That disagreement is hard to verify, and no single signal can settle it, so we organize the analysis around four questions: (A) does the debater say it disagrees; (B) does its reply text actually argue; (C) does the dissent survive once the tone instruction that produced it is removed; and (D) do the probabilities assigned to stance options change? We evaluate three-model committees on 50 open-ended GlobalOpinionQA questions under three debate tones, friendly (seek common ground), neutral, and hostile (stress-test every position). The answers differ. (A) Full agreement differs by 50.4 percentage points between the friendly and hostile endpoints, pooling replies across all three rounds. (B) The text argues too: an LLM evaluator reading the contribution and reply without the structured self-report or tone instruction confirms the pushback is real. (C) Removing the instruction produces more returns to agreement in our sample, but the primary question-level test is inconclusive. (D) In a separate open-weight study, adjusted movement toward the opposing side is detected in two of three models, relative to a filler-based reference. This measures contextual response probabilities, not lasting belief change. For final answers, debate brings no measurable quality gain: an evaluator that judges each pair in both answer orders scores the debated answer no better than the same committee's no-debate answer on all 299 pairs, a test that detects severe but misses moderate damage in our checks. Taken together, LLM debate readily changes what agents say, but we find much weaker evidence that it changes what they persistently endorse or improves the quality of the final answer.

When should a language model answer directly, sample and vote, or engage in multi-agent debate? Recent work shows voting often explains much of the gain attributed to debate, while selective-debate systems activate deliberation only on uncertain examples. We ask: under a matched ceiling on generated tokens (960 per example), how much per-example routing headroom exists, and how much is recoverable from cheap pre-deliberation signals? We evaluate greedy decoding, three-sample voting, and a two-agent critique-revise debate on MuSiQue and GSM8K using Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ministral 3 8B Instruct. On MuSiQue, an oracle selecting the correct protocol per example gains +14.0 and +13.7 pp over the best fixed one. The best fixed protocol is model- and dataset-dependent: each (model, dataset) cell has a different winner. This headroom is hard to recover from cheap ex-ante signals. A vote-entropy threshold is the only controller that directionally beats the best fixed protocol on both models (+1.3 and +1.7 pp), though individual paired-bootstrap CIs include zero. A joint analysis (meta-analysis +1.6 pp, p=0.125; Bayesian P(both>0)=0.59) is directionally consistent but not significant. Learned controllers (LR, GBT) do not outperform the threshold. The key finding is structural: vote entropy predicts where debate is safe, not where debate is needed. High entropy sharply reduces debate backfire, but 66% of debate-helpful examples (31/47) occur when voting is unanimous but wrong. A single-prompt self-critique probe on Llama flips the answer in 127/127 unanimous cases, yielding zero mutual information with the debate-helpful label; we cannot rule out a prompt-compliance artifact, but either interpretation disqualifies the probe as a router. Recovering the remaining headroom requires behavioral probes that avoid format-compliance confounds at the 8B scale.