Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

LLMs as Debate Partners: Utilizing Genetic Algorithms and Adversarial Search for Adaptive Arguments

Authors
Prakash Aryan
Date
Publisher
arXiv
This paper introduces DebateBrawl, an innovative AI-powered debate platform that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs), Genetic Algorithms (GA), and Adversarial Search (AS) to create an adaptive and engaging debating experience. DebateBrawl addresses the limitations of traditional LLMs in strategic planning by incorporating evolutionary optimization and game-theoretic techniques. The system demonstrates remarkable performance in generating coherent, contextually relevant arguments while adapting its strategy in real-time. Experimental results involving 23 debates show balanced outcomes between AI and human participants, with the AI system achieving an average score of 2.72 compared to the human average of 2.67 out of 10. User feedback indicates significant improvements in debating skills and a highly satisfactory learning experience, with 85% of users reporting improved debating abilities and 78% finding the AI opponent appropriately challenging. The system's ability to maintain high factual accuracy (92% compared to 78% in human-only debates) while generating diverse arguments addresses critical concerns in AI-assisted discourse. DebateBrawl not only serves as an effective educational tool but also contributes to the broader goal of improving public discourse through AI-assisted argumentation. The paper discusses the ethical implications of AI in persuasive contexts and outlines the measures implemented to ensure responsible development and deployment of the system, including robust fact-checking mechanisms and transparency in decision-making processes.
Study at a glance
  • Question: How effectively can an adaptive AI debate partner engage human participants and support their debating skills?
  • Setting and data: 23 debates between human participants and an AI system, along with user feedback.
  • Method: Experimental evaluation of AI and human debate performance, combined with a user feedback survey.
Why it matters

Traditional large language models face limitations in strategic planning. In addition, maintaining high factual accuracy while generating diverse arguments remains a critical concern in AI-assisted discourse.

Key findings
  • Across 23 debates, the AI debate partner achieved an average score of 2.72 out of 10, closely matching the human average of 2.67.
  • Eighty-five percent of users reported improved debating abilities, and 78% found the AI opponent appropriately challenging.
  • The AI system maintained 92% factual accuracy in its arguments, compared to 78% accuracy in human-only debates.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?