Auditing Counterfire: Evaluating Advanced Counterargument Generation with Evidence and Style

We audited LLMs for their ability to create evidence-based and stylistic counter-arguments to posts from the Reddit ChangeMyView dataset. We benchmarked their rhetorical quality across a host of qualitative and quantitative metrics and then ultimately evaluated them on their persuasive abilities as compared to human counter-arguments. Our evaluation is based on Counterfire: a new dataset of 32,000 counter-arguments generated from LLMs: GPT-3.5 Turbo and Koala and their fine-tuned variants, and PaLM 2, with varying prompts for evidence use and argumentative style. GPT-3.5 Turbo ranked highest in argument quality with strong paraphrasing and style adherence, particularly in `reciprocity' style arguments. However, the stylistic counter-arguments still fall short of human persuasive standards, where people also preferred reciprocal to evidence-based rebuttals. The findings suggest that a balance between evidentiality and stylistic elements is vital to a compelling counter-argument. We close with a discussion of future research directions and implications for evaluating LLM outputs.