←
↑
→
You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Loading tree...
CDBR should use Arguman for the Psalms Project
because
score: 1
Arguman looks great and is really easy to use.
but
score: 1
Can't place premises via drag-and-drop; instead premises are moved via a dropdown on the edit screen.
because
score: 1
Automatic hyperlinking. Mentioning something that shows up in other arguments auto-links it, making it easy to see what the term means.
1 branch
‒
but
score: 1
Not clear how it would interoperate with our existing wiki.
because
score: 0
Arguman has robust argument mapping capabilities.
but
score: 1
Arguments can be for or against, but not strongly/weakly for/against.
but
score: 0
Double negatives still show up as red. When you say "A, but B" and then "B, but C", C still shows up as red. Shouldn't it be green, in support of A?
but
score: 1
Premises are scored by how many supporting/opposing premises they have.
0 branch
‒
1 branch
‒
but
score: 0
Arguman lacks wiki-style rollback capabilities.
but
score: 1
Wiki-style rollback capabilities aren't needed to prevent vandalism if editing controls are robust enough. People can only edit their own arguments, and if they add superfluous arguments those can be reported.
but
score: 0
Arguman arguments can't be limited to CDBR participants.
but
score: 1
Arguman is open-source; we could host our own version and limit registration to our participants.
0 branch
‒
0 branch
‒
0 branch
‒
3 branch
‒
×
The argument is too complex. You can switch to list view.
Neutral support and objection rate.
dawnpaladin
