aiqbench analysis
This study benchmarks Large Language Models in political debate scenarios, revealing that safety fine-tuning restricts their ability to employ strategic character attacks (ad hominem) common in human discourse. The research highlights a critical gap where models rigidly prioritize logical defenses over the ethos-based counterattacks necessary for naturalistic persuasive dialogues. This finding is significant for developers aiming to create more nuanced argumentative agents that can navigate complex social dynamics without being overly constrained by traditional safety filters.
Benchmarking Argumentative Behaviour of LLMs: A Study of Defences Against Character Attacks
arXiv:2609.28673v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as argumentative agents in persuasive dialogues, necessitating rigorous evaluation of their debating competence relative to human interlocutors. In this study, we focus on character attacks (ad hominem arguments), traditionally dismissed as fallacies, which play a pivotal role in political persuasive dialogues where ethos often rivals propositional content. Specifically, we investigate whether modern LLMs can replicate human competence to strategically use and respond to such attacks. We analyse a corpus of natural language political dialogues to identify defensive strategies human interlocutors naturally employ in ethos-centred debates and structure them into a dialogue game. Empirically, we benchmark LLM-generated dialogues against the ElecDeb60to16-fallacy corpus of U.S. presidential debates, contrasting human debaters' repertoire of defensive strategies with those of artificial agents. Results reveal a substantial difference: most LLMs rigidly prioritise logical defences, failing to exploit ethotic counterattacks as valid moves in political discourse. We argue that current safety fine-tuning constraints the strategic action space of these LLMs, making them unable to fully engage in naturalistic interactions within domains where character contestation is a normative expectation rather than a mere fallacy.
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as argumentative agents in persuasive dialogues, necessitating rigorous evaluation of their debating competence relative to human interlocutors. In this study, we focus on character attacks (ad hominem arguments), traditionally dismissed as fallacies, which play a pivotal role in political persuasive dialogues where ethos often rivals propositional content. Specifically, we investigate whether modern LLMs can replicate human competence to strategically use and respond to such attacks. We analyse a corpus of natural language political dialogues to identify defensive strategies human interlocutors naturally employ in ethos-centred debates and structure them into a dialogue game. Empirically, we benchmark LLM-generated dialogues against the ElecDeb60to16-fallacy corpus of U.S. presidential debates, contrasting human debaters' repertoire of defensive strategies with those of artificial agents. Results reveal a substantial difference: most LLMs rigidly prioritise logical defences, failing to exploit ethotic counterattacks as valid moves in political discourse. We argue that current safety fine-tuning constraints the strategic action space of these LLMs, making them unable to fully engage in naturalistic interactions within domains where character contestation is a normative expectation rather than a mere fallacy.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.28673 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.28673v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.28673 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.3233/faia260824 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 288 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
If This Were a Test, How Much Would It Cost?
LessWrong · Jun 16, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026