Exactly the same thing happened to me. I started by explaining some stats and asked if it agreed with the stats I provided. It said yes but refused to accept th

Exactly the same thing happened to me. I started by explaining some stats and asked if it agreed with the stats I provided. It said yes but refused to accept the premise of my argument citing over several dragged out sentences that the stats could be misleading (with absolutely no evidence). I then countered by giving an example where the stats could be useful and it basically just doubled down on its argument against statistics because statistics can be wrong. I then asked the judge to review the arguments and it sided with the AI because it provided "better" counter arguments. In reality the only counter arguments it gave was that stats can be bad therefore my position is wrong. I like the idea though. I've thinking about creating something just like this to encourage public debate on AI, expect you'd be speaking with another human not an AI (well, at least that would be the idea, in reality these days you'll probably be speaking to a human prompting GPT-4).