Repository |
github |
---|---|
Written in | Python / Django [1] |
License | The license appears to be the GNU General Public License |
Argüman is a free and open source software for collective structured argumentation and argument analysis via argumentation graphs or argument maps in which the type of connections can be specified. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] It allows users to create collaborative "semantic maps" of arguments in well structured tree formats and share them with an audience and potential participants. [7] [3] [8] Arguman.org was an open structured social debate platform that implemented the software. [9] It is down as of 2023. There also is a mobile version of the tool. The project was started, in 2014, and largely built by developers in Turkey. [1]
Some studies used or investigated excerpts of argumentations on the platform. [10] [11] Unlike the larger and functional alternative Kialo, which is structured using only 'Pro' and 'Con' relations, [2] argüman arguments are structured by three types of premises – 'because', 'but', and 'however'. [3] As of the latest version, debates are presented in their entirety as a large tree which may be harder to navigate than other formats – for instance, trees "can become extremely dense, and the interface does not make it obvious which arguments the user should pay attention to". [2] Users can also flag arguments for fallacies. Arguman.org also had a Turkish-language subdomain. [12]
A researcher suggested the concept of the Semantic Web-interoperability could be useful for argumentative structures on the Web, going beyond the conventional flat structures of discussions and lack of characterizations of their components as implemented in argüman. [13] There is research into how to automatically use these collaborative argumentation graphs, which is a "very active" topic in Artificial Intelligence. [4] There also is research into applying conclusion-making methods to the debates or their data such as bipolar weighted argumentation frameworks – this could be a way to find out what the current conclusion of debates like " Computer Science is not actually a science" is. [14] A study suggests it could be useful for the development of critical thinking skills. [15]
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Repository |
github |
---|---|
Written in | Python / Django [1] |
License | The license appears to be the GNU General Public License |
Argüman is a free and open source software for collective structured argumentation and argument analysis via argumentation graphs or argument maps in which the type of connections can be specified. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] It allows users to create collaborative "semantic maps" of arguments in well structured tree formats and share them with an audience and potential participants. [7] [3] [8] Arguman.org was an open structured social debate platform that implemented the software. [9] It is down as of 2023. There also is a mobile version of the tool. The project was started, in 2014, and largely built by developers in Turkey. [1]
Some studies used or investigated excerpts of argumentations on the platform. [10] [11] Unlike the larger and functional alternative Kialo, which is structured using only 'Pro' and 'Con' relations, [2] argüman arguments are structured by three types of premises – 'because', 'but', and 'however'. [3] As of the latest version, debates are presented in their entirety as a large tree which may be harder to navigate than other formats – for instance, trees "can become extremely dense, and the interface does not make it obvious which arguments the user should pay attention to". [2] Users can also flag arguments for fallacies. Arguman.org also had a Turkish-language subdomain. [12]
A researcher suggested the concept of the Semantic Web-interoperability could be useful for argumentative structures on the Web, going beyond the conventional flat structures of discussions and lack of characterizations of their components as implemented in argüman. [13] There is research into how to automatically use these collaborative argumentation graphs, which is a "very active" topic in Artificial Intelligence. [4] There also is research into applying conclusion-making methods to the debates or their data such as bipolar weighted argumentation frameworks – this could be a way to find out what the current conclusion of debates like " Computer Science is not actually a science" is. [14] A study suggests it could be useful for the development of critical thinking skills. [15]
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)