Do LLM Debates Repeat Arguments Differently Across Languages?

Huiqian Lai

cs.CLJul 26, 2026

Do LLM Debates Repeat Arguments Differently Across Languages?

Authors: Huiqian Lai

Organizations: Syracuse University

Abstract

LLM debate is usually evaluated by final answers, yet transcripts reveal whether later turns develop new arguments or return to earlier claims in new wording. We study this process with \textit{prior-argument similarity}, which compares extracted argument units with earlier units in the same debate. In controlled eight-turn debates over 71 motions, six languages, and four model agents, Chinese is the only tested language with a consistently positive gap relative to English across three multilingual embedding models. The gap persists across agents, turn positions, regression adjustment, metric variants, extraction-length controls, a second-extractor subset, and cross-encoder tail rescoring. Manual calibration shows weak item-level alignment but a high-similarity tail enriched for substantive repetition. A diversity-aware prompt lowers \textit{prior-argument similarity} across languages, yet does not significantly narrow the Chinese--English gap. Multilingual debate evaluation should therefore measure argumentative development over time and report both average and gap terms.

Explore similar work

Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate
Jun 1, 2026Yekyung Kim, Yapei Chang, Chau Minh Pham +1Debate Human Oversight
What Does Multi-Agent LLM Debate Actually Change? A Layered Analysis of Disagreement and Answer Quality
Sep 7, 2026Chen QianMulti-Agent Debate Disagreement
Statistical Scouting Finds Debate-Safe but Not Debate-Useful Cases: A Matched-Ceiling Study of Open-Weight LLM Reasoning Protocols
May 10, 2026Julia Hu, Alfred Shen, Kumar LakshmipathiDebate Multi-Agent Debate

Jun 1, 2026 · cs.CLJ/K move · Enter open · S save

Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate

Yekyung Kim, Yapei Chang, Chau Minh Pham, Mohit Iyyer

University of Maryland, College Park

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.

Debate Human Oversight

Open paper Ask about it PDF

Abstract

Explore similar work

Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate

What Does Multi-Agent LLM Debate Actually Change? A Layered Analysis of Disagreement and Answer Quality

Statistical Scouting Finds Debate-Safe but Not Debate-Useful Cases: A Matched-Ceiling Study of Open-Weight LLM Reasoning Protocols