Debate Tools

edoarad (+683/-535) added Consider.it and minor edits
Ruby
habrykaTest
Venryx (+231/-160) /* Debate Map */ Updated the url for the Debate Map site.
JustMichael1984 (+394) /* Added DebateArt to the list of debate tools */
Venryx (+787) /* List of debate tools */ Added an entry for another debate-mapping website. (disclaimer: I'm the creator and developer)
gwern (-31) Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/Marimeoa|Marimeoa]] ([[User talk:Marimeoa|talk]]) to last revision by [[User:Gwern|Gwern]]
Marimeoa (+31) /* Other links */
gwern (-119) rv doubleteaming
gwern (-33) Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/Jamesmea|Jamesmea]] ([[User talk:Jamesmea|talk]]) to last revision by [[User:Emesmeo|Emesmeo]]

This wiki page and tag gives a list and characterization of debate tools. Debate tools were previously discussed on the bloghere.

Literature

Note: Perhaps discussion should goThere exists an academic literature on argument mapping and other tools (computer aided or not) for assisting debate. The most recent survey seems to be "Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the discussionstate of the art" written in June 2009, which lists 50 tools (starting on page 94).

Online Deliberation, or is a related discipline that asks what are the comments threadeffects of the original post.online discussions, when are they effective, and how to design better systems. 

  • first mentioned:
  • pros:
    • collaboratively edit argument maps
  • cons:
    • it doesn't do anything with probabilities.
    • Do not zoom out too much!

Literature

Consider.it

There exists an academic literature on argument mappingGraphically represents people's agreement with a statement and other tools (computer aided or not) for assisting debate.which arguments were most used. The most recent survey seems to be "Computer-supported argumentation: A reviewarguments themselves are not subjects of the statefurther investigation though. Check out this use-case of the art" writtenpublic decisions in June 2009, which lists 50 tools (starting on page 94).Seattle.

Blog posts

Summary: Web platform for collaborativeTree-based mapping of beliefs, arguments, and evidence.

  • first mentioned:
  • pros:
    • Collaborative creation, editing, and evaluation of debate/argument maps.
    • Open source. (under the MIT license)
    • Developed using modern web technologies. (react-js, redux, firebase)mobx, firestore)
    • Built-in Ability to enter both formal arguments (premises and conclusion), or less structured "single-premise arguments".
    • Rating system for the truth/probability and of claims, as well as the relevance/validity rating, and calculation of argument strength from these ratings.arguments.
    • Tree-based structure which can extend very deep without loss of clarity or usability.
    • Integrated term/definition system. Terms can be defined once, then used anywhere, with hover-based definition display.
  • cons:
    • Has a learning curve for casual users, as content must conform to the argument<-premise structure at each level.
    • Performance is currently less than idealNot yet made usable on mobile devices.

DebateArt

Summary: Debating platform with rich one-on-one debates functionality and advanced discussions forum.

  • pros:
    • Clean and convenient design.
    • Advanced and flexible one-on-one debating system.
    • Separate forum for casual discussions.
    • Private messaging system.
    • Great performance.
    • Friendly community.
    • Active and thorough moderation.
  • cons:
    • Has a learning curve for casual users.
    • No dedicated mobile version.

Debate Map

Summary: Web platform for collaborative mapping of beliefs, arguments, and evidence.

  • first mentioned:
  • pros:
    • Collaborative creation, editing, and evaluation of debate/argument maps.
    • Open source. (under the MIT license)
    • Developed using modern web technologies. (react-js, redux, firebase)
    • Built-in probability and validity rating, and calculation of argument strength from these ratings.
    • Tree-based structure which can extend very deep without loss of clarity or usability.
    • Integrated term/definition system. Terms can be defined once, then used anywhere, with hover-based definition display.
  • cons:
    • Has a learning curve for casual users, as content must conform to the argument<-premise structure at each level.
    • Performance is currently less than ideal on mobile devices.
Load More (10/56)