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

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.

THiNK: Can Large Language Models Think-aloud?

Assessing higher-order thinking skills in large language models (LLMs) remains a fundamental challenge, especially in tasks that go beyond surface-level accuracy. In this work, we propose THiNK (Testing Higher-order Notion of Knowledge), a multi-agent, feedback-driven evaluation framework grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy. THiNK frames reasoning assessment as an iterative task of problem generation, critique, and revision, encouraging LLMs to think-aloud through step-by-step reflection and refinement. This enables a systematic evaluation of both lower-order (e.g., remember, understand) and higher-order (e.g., evaluate, create) thinking skills. We apply THiNK to seven state-of-the-art LLMs and perform a detailed cognitive analysis of their outputs. Results reveal that while models reliably perform lower-order categories well, they struggle with applying knowledge in realistic contexts and exhibit limited abstraction. Structured feedback loops significantly improve reasoning performance, particularly in higher-order thinking. Qualitative evaluations further confirm that THiNK-guided outputs better align with domain logic and problem structure. The code of our framework provides a scalable methodology for probing and enhancing LLM reasoning, offering new directions for evaluation grounded in learning science, which is available at our GitHub repository.