Decoding Human and AI Persuasion in National College Debate: Analyzing Prepared Arguments Through Aristotle's Rhetorical Principles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12817v1
• Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2025 19:46:16 GMT
• Title: Decoding Human and AI Persuasion in National College Debate: Analyzing Prepared Arguments Through Aristotle's Rhetorical Principles
• Authors: Mengqian Wu, Jiayi Zhang, Raymond Z. Zhang,
• Abstract summary: This study explores the potential of leveraging artificial intelligence to generate effective arguments.<n>The evidence cards outline the arguments students will present and how those arguments will be delivered.<n>We compared the quality of the arguments in the evidence cards created by GPT and student debaters using Aristotle's rhetorical principles.
• Score: 9.91280795515591
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Debate has been widely adopted as a strategy to enhance critical thinking skills in English Language Arts (ELA). One important skill in debate is forming effective argumentation, which requires debaters to select supportive evidence from literature and construct compelling claims. However, the training of this skill largely depends on human coaching, which is labor-intensive and difficult to scale. To better support students in preparing for debates, this study explores the potential of leveraging artificial intelligence to generate effective arguments. Specifically, we prompted GPT-4 to create an evidence card and compared it to those produced by human debaters. The evidence cards outline the arguments students will present and how those arguments will be delivered, including components such as literature-based evidence quotations, summaries of core ideas, verbatim reading scripts, and tags (i.e., titles of the arguments). We compared the quality of the arguments in the evidence cards created by GPT and student debaters using Aristotle's rhetorical principles: ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical reasoning). Through a systematic qualitative and quantitative analysis, grounded in the rhetorical principles, we identify the strengths and limitations of human and GPT in debate reasoning, outlining areas where AI's focus and justifications align with or diverge from human reasoning. Our findings contribute to the evolving role of AI-assisted learning interventions, offering insights into how student debaters can develop strategies that enhance their argumentation and reasoning skills.

Related papers

• SAD: A Large-Scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue Dataset [60.33125467375306]
  In practice, argumentation is often realized as multi-turn dialogue.<n>We present the first large-scale textbfStrategic textbfArgumentative textbfDialogue dataset, consisting of 392,822 examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T11:11:37Z)
• How Persuasive Could LLMs Be? A First Study Combining Linguistic-Rhetorical Analysis and User Experiments [1.1277995582894218]
  The study finds that while participants often acknowledge the benefits highlighted by ChatGPT, ethical concerns tend to persist or even intensify post-interaction.<n>These findings highlight new insights on AI-generated persuasion in ethically sensitive domains and are a basis for future research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T08:45:04Z)
• Argument Quality Assessment in the Age of Instruction-Following Large Language Models [45.832808321166844]
  A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality. We identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment. We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-24T10:43:21Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays [66.36541161082856]
  ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users. This study compares human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-24T12:58:28Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• Strategic Argumentation Dialogues for Persuasion: Framework and Experiments Based on Modelling the Beliefs and Concerns of the Persuadee [6.091096843566857]
  Two key dimensions for determining whether an argument is good in a particular dialogue are the degree to which the intended audience believes the argument and counterarguments, and the impact that the argument has on the concerns of the intended audience. We present a framework for modelling persuadees in terms of their beliefs and concerns, and for harnessing these models in optimizing the choice of move in persuasion dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-28T08:49:24Z)
• Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion [39.74040217761505]
  We investigate the role of discourse structure of the arguments from online debates in their persuasiveness. We find that argument structure features play an essential role in achieving the better predictive performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T17:34:50Z)
• What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
  This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness. We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.