I think argument analysis software is great. To make it work you need judgment algorithms. eg: If people could mark their convictions -100% (reject) to 0(neutral) to +100% (agree) or between values for partial leanings. Then one can select a user and see his perspective on the whole argument.
These things help make clear what other people are thinking. This conviction should not be used to sort the argument. That is another judgement metric called "Importance".
Examples are not formally included in the current Arguman structure and so are often included as premises, rather than in support of premises. There needs to be a better way to include examples and/or evidence as things that support premises - not AS premises themselves.
All meta-discussions should be done outside the argument tree. By meta-discussion i mean, propositions of reformulation, propositions of moving, propositions of merging with a similar arguments in the tree, questions and request for clarifications.
While the fallacy reporting has a good start, it definitely needs to be worked on as many people don't really know what all the fallacies mean which makes it difficult to report. It would be pretty great if arguman put up a new page with many fallacies along with some simple explanations.
I think this would really help the community learn more about how to argue and how not to argue.
Arguments should be treated like Wikipedia articles. They need to be improved over time by the community, not just added to. This can be accomplished with the help of a power-user/editor community akin to Wikipedia's.
Conclusions should be voted on. Premises should be voted on. Hidden assumptions should be sussed out, and then voted on. In that way, weaknesses in arguments can be better identified. More or less convincing arguments, premises and assumptions (and perhaps examples too) can be identified.
Discrete argument sub-items should be composed of ingredients all of which can be sectioned off and validated or invalidated separately - this encourages a watertight argument but encourages those with numerous correct supporting ingredients to be able to use all of them to make their case.
If the redesign focuses on a better logical articulation, it has to teach the users how to treat arguments, concepts, fallacies and objections. Underneath dwells a core question : is this platform an empowerment tool for people, or a place for intellectual power-users ? Elitism vs empowerment.
We live in a society that loves for nothing more than to argue. With some renovation to the website, or maybe even an app, this could become a widespread conversation tool. I think it would be beneficial to have a thing like this widespread, but the way it's set up now doesn't work for that.
There's room for both Facts and Opinions, but they need to be flagged and differentiated. Facts need to be supported with evidence from trusted sources (however the community chooses to define that). Opinions should be differentiated as such.