comments

Argument structuring could be improved

ARGUNET seems to offer a more detailed reconstruction of arguments.

 I just had a short look into the Argunet manual  and only made some first steps here today, creating "Stuttgart 21". Maybe, the more detailed reconstruction in Argunet (logical reconstruction see: http://www.argunet.org/working-with-argunet/ch03.html) can simply be done here in this 3 text structure. The details field can be used for it perhaps.
May be the more experienced can affirm it, or not ...  I hope, I can do it by myself soon ;o)
Thanx!
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
DebateGraph Community
⌃
Development Ideas
⌃
Improving existing features?
⌃
Idea types and relationships?
■
Argument structuring could be improved
↳
Use the Part-Argument element type to identify the co-premises
↳
An argument scheme could be chosen when creating an issue
⇥
Some argument mapping "Best Practices" could be mentioned.
□
"Decision" node type needs a sub-component type (like "positions")
□
Clarify the use of argument groups
□
Moves may create type inconsistencies
□
Part arguments were a useful measure against cluttered views
□
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip