Argument or aMap has an interesting concept for a website; the site gives you the ability to build a visual map of an argument.
"should the hard drive be fixed?" "Do people like cats or dogs better?" were two of the arguments I found on the site.
Here's the company's explanation of the theory behind the site.
aMaps are based around the same structure as “informal logic” - this is the logic people use to argue in everyday life. Informal logic has a four-tiered structure:
- Your position (I think . . .) - what you think overall
- Propositions (Because . . .) - reasons that support your position
- Arguments (As . . .) - supporting arguments that back up each of your propositions
- Evidence (Supported by . . .) - supporting evidence to back up your arguments
(N.B. some people also refer to “arguments” as “minor propositions” - in either case, the idea is that this tier is designed to back up your prior “propositions”.)
When put into use, you get something like this:
State their position “I think Man U are the best team in the Premiership”
State their proposition (reason) “Because they’re the most successful on the pitch”
State supporting argument “As they win the most silverware and have the best players”
State supporting evidence “In 2008 Man U won the Champions League and Ronaldo won best European Player of the year.”
The company takes the most compelling arguments and turning them into printed documents for resale.
However, I thought there were a few things the designers of the site could do to improve the usability and social interaction design, especially when you review the list of aMaps. I was not able to sort the aMaps, or search through them. I think being about to categorize the maps would be helpful. While you can comment, I'd also give people the ability to rate aMaps, essentially combine some popularity voting elements into the eMaps site.
