# InspireDebate: Multi-Dimensional Subjective-Objective Evaluation-Guided Reasoning and Optimization for Debating

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18102 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.18102/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 15 of its 43 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.18223/) (2023)
- [Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14219/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Towards Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Reinforced Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.09686/) (2025)
- [Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04205/) (2023)
- [Model Predictive Task Sampling for Efficient and Robust Adaptation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.11039/) (2025)
- [Can LLMs Beat Humans in Debating? A Dynamic Multi-agent Framework for Competitive Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04472/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [DRPG (Decompose, Retrieve, Plan, Generate): An Agentic Framework for Academic Rebuttal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.18081/) (2026)
- [R-Debater: Retrieval-Augmented Debate Generation through Argumentative Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.24684/) (2025)
- [DEFINED: A Data-Efficient Computational Framework for Fine-Grained Creativity Assessment in Debate Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.07226/) (2026)
- [PolyDebate: A Game-Orchestrated Multimodal System for Debate Skills Practice and Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.16276/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

With the rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs), debating tasks, such as argument quality assessment and debate process simulation, have made significant progress. However, existing LLM-based debating systems focus on responding to specific arguments while neglecting objective assessments such as authenticity and logical validity. Furthermore, these systems lack a structured approach to optimize across various dimensions-including evaluation metrics, chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, and multi-turn debate refinement-thereby limiting their effectiveness. To address these interconnected challenges, we propose a dual-component framework: (1) InspireScore, a novel evaluation system that establishes a multi-dimensional assessment architecture incorporating four subjective criteria (emotional appeal, argument clarity, argument arrangement, and topic relevance) alongside two objective metrics (fact authenticity and logical validity); and (2) InspireDebate, an optimized debating framework employing a phased optimization approach through CoT reasoning enhancement, multi-dimensional Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and real-time knowledge grounding via web-based Retrieval Augmented Generation (Web-RAG). Empirical evaluations demonstrate that InspireScore achieves 44% higher correlation with expert judgments compared to existing methods, while InspireDebate shows significant improvements, outperforming baseline models by 57%. Source code is available at https://github.com/fywang12/InspireDebate.