Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve language-model decisions through the exchange of arguments, yet agreement after debate need not reflect independent corroboration. We investigate how peer communication influences individual decisions and collective outcomes through behavioral and internal interventions. We introduce MAD Bench, a 2,400-question benchmark spanning knowledge and reasoning, values and moral judgment, and safety and refusal, and evaluate three open-weight models using a round-matched independent-reflection control. Among answer-changing responses, a forced-choice readout before rationale generation matches the eventual answer more often in debate than in reflection (65.4% versus 22.3% on Qwen3.5-9B). Message ablations reveal model-dependent effects of peer answers and reasoning, while attributing identical text to the receiver rather than another agent substantially changes its influence. For the tested source descriptions, stated track record affects answer preferences more strongly than professional-status cues across all three models. Attention masking produces different changes in decision margins across the three checkpoints. On fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions, debate yields small estimated accuracy improvements over initial majority voting, while increasing the rate of unanimous wrong answers by 3.1-7.4 percentage points relative to reflection. Longer debates show persistent consensus and greater correlation between agents' correctness than reflection. These findings show that stronger consensus can coexist with more shared errors, motivating evaluations that assess dependence and unanimous errors alongside accuracy.

翻译：暂无翻译