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:
  • a comment by Peer Infinity
• 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

• Debate tools: an experience report by Morendil
• Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking by Johnicholas
• TakeOnIt: Database of Expert Opinions by Eliezer Yudkowsky

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.

• first mentioned:
  • a comment by Morendil
• examples:
  • mapped controversies
  • Florida State vs Louisville Live Streaming

• first mentioned:
  • a comment by wnoise
• pros:
  • it does lots of stuff
• cons:
  • it's kinda complicated
• examples:
  • sample worldview
  • The model of libertarian ideas
  • Springboks vs All Blacks Live Stream

• http://www.visualizingargumentation.info/
• http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tarc
• structured debate
• dispute resolution technology
• Iowa vs North Dakota State Live Streaming

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

• first mentioned:
  • a comment by Venryx
• 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.

• http://www.visualizingargumentation.info/
• http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tarc
• structured debate
• dispute resolution technology
• Alvarez vs Smith Live Streaming

• http://www.visualizingargumentation.info/
• http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tarc
• structured debate
• dispute resolution technology
• Alvarez vs Smith Live Streaming

Debate Map

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

• first mentioned:
  • a comment by Venryx
• 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.