From https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/12130.12168, it seems impossible to get an unbiased coin in the two-party protocol when one of the parties is corrupt (and unbounded).
The argument is as follows, let $n$ be the security parameter:
Let $\Pi$ be a protocol between Alice and Bob, such that at the end of the protocol, Alice outputs $a$, and Bob outputs $b$. Without loss of generality, assume that Bob is a rushing adversary (Alice sends the first message in each round).
It's safe to assume after $\Pi$ concludes and both parties have output $a$ and $b$, P[a=b] > 1/2. If P[a=b] = 1/2, then Bob just outputs a random bit regardless of what Alice does. If this is the case, Alice can output $a \oplus b$ as the final answer, and she has an unbiased coin. Bob's entire goal is to prevent this from happening.
So we assume that $\Pi$ is $\epsilon$ consistent i.e. P[a=b] = 1/2 + $\epsilon$ for $\epsilon > 0$. This a very weak assumption that states that B will not output an unbiased random bit. In this case Theorem 2.2 of the cited paper shows that for all polynomial functions $f$ : $Pr[f(a,b) = 1 ] \geq 1/2 + \frac{\epsilon}{4r + 1}$ where $r$ is the number of rounds of messaging in $\Pi$.
As $r$ is a polynomial function of the security parameter $n$ the final output is non-negligibly biased away from 1/2.