Distinguishing LLM-generated text from human-written is a key challenge for safe and ethical NLP, particularly in high-stakes settings such as persuasive online discourse. While recent work focuses on detection, real-world use cases also demand interpretable tools to help humans understand and distinguish LLM-generated texts. To this end, we present an analysis framework comparing human- and LLM-generated arguments using two easily-interpretable feature sets: general-purpose linguistic features (e.g., lexical richness, syntactic complexity) and domain-specific features related to argument quality (e.g., logical soundness, engagement strategies). Applied to /r/ChangeMyView arguments by humans and three LLMs, our method reveals clear patterns: LLM-generated counter-arguments show lower type-token and lemma-token ratios but higher emotional intensity — particularly in anticipation and trust. They more closely resemble textbook-quality arguments — cogent, justified, explicitly respectful toward others, and positive in tone. Moreover, counter-arguments generated by LLMs converge more closely with the original post's style and quality than those written by humans. Finally, we demonstrate that these differences enable a lightweight, interpretable, and highly effective classifier for detecting LLM-generated comments in CMV.