Argument map

An argument map or argument diagram is a visual

representation of the structure of an argument. An argument map
typically includes all the key components of the argument,
traditionally called the conclusion and the premises, also called
contention and reasons.[1] Argument maps can also show co-
premises, objections, counterarguments, rebuttals, and lemmas.
There are different styles of argument map but they are often
functionally equivalent and represent an argument's individual
claims and the relationships between them.

Argument maps are commonly used in the context of teaching and

applying critical thinking.[2] The purpose of mapping is to uncover
A schematic argument map showing
the logical structure of arguments, identify unstated assumptions,
a contention (or conclusion),
evaluate the support an argument offers for a conclusion, and aid
supporting arguments and
understanding of debates. Argument maps are often designed to
objections, and an inference
support deliberation of issues, ideas and arguments in wicked
objection
problems.[3]

An argument map is not to be confused with a concept map or a

mind map, two other kinds of node–link diagram which have different constraints on nodes and links.[4]

Key features
A number of different kinds of argument maps have been proposed but the most common, which Chris
Reed and Glenn Rowe called the standard diagram,[5] consists of a tree structure with each of the reasons
leading to the conclusion. There is no consensus as to whether the conclusion should be at the top of the
tree with the reasons leading up to it or whether it should be at the bottom with the reasons leading down to
it.[5] Another variation diagrams an argument from left to right.[6]

According to Douglas N. Walton and colleagues, an argument map has two basic components: "One
component is a set of circled numbers arrayed as points. Each number represents a proposition (premise or
conclusion) in the argument being diagrammed. The other component is a set of lines or arrows joining the
points. Each line (arrow) represents an inference. The whole network of points and lines represents a kind
of overview of the reasoning in the given argument..."[7] With the introduction of software for producing
argument maps, it has become common for argument maps to consist of boxes containing the actual
propositions rather than numbers referencing those propositions.

There is disagreement on the terminology to be used when describing argument maps,[8] but the standard
diagram contains the following structures:

Dependent premises or co-premises, where at least one of the joined premises requires another premise
before it can give support to the conclusion: An argument with this structure has been called a linked
argument.[9]
 Statements 1
and 2 are
dependent
premises or co-
premises.

Independent premises, where the premise can support the conclusion on its own: Although independent
premises may jointly make the conclusion more convincing, this is to be distinguished from situations
where a premise gives no support unless it is joined to another premise. Where several premises or groups
of premises lead to a final conclusion the argument might be described as convergent. This is distinguished
from a divergent argument where a single premise might be used to support two separate conclusions.[10]

Statements 2, 3, 4 are
independent premises.

Intermediate conclusions or sub-conclusions, where a claim is supported by another claim that is used in
turn to support some further claim, i.e. the final conclusion or another intermediate conclusion: In the
following diagram, statement 4 is an intermediate conclusion in that it is a conclusion in relation to
statement 5 but is a premise in relation to the final conclusion, i.e. statement 1. An argument with this
structure is sometimes called a complex argument. If there is a single chain of claims containing at least one
intermediate conclusion, the argument is sometimes described as a serial argument or a chain argument.[11]

Statement 4 is an
intermediate conclusion
or sub-conclusion.
Each of these structures can be represented by the equivalent "box and line" approach to argument maps. In
the following diagram, the contention is shown at the top, and the boxes linked to it represent supporting
reasons, which comprise one or more premises. The green arrow indicates that the two reasons support the
contention:

A box and line diagram

Argument maps can also represent counterarguments. In the following diagram, the two objections weaken
the contention, while the reasons support the premise of the objection:

A sample argument using objections

Representing an argument as an argument map

Diagramming written text

A written text can be transformed into an argument map by following a sequence of steps. Monroe
Beardsley's 1950 book Practical Logic recommended the following procedure:[12]

1. Separate statements by brackets and number them.

2. Put circles around the logical indicators.
3. Supply, in parenthesis, any logical indicators that are left out.
4. Set out the statements in a diagram in which arrows show the relationships between
statements.

Beardsley gave the first example of a text being analysed in this way:
 Though ① [people who talk about the "social significance" of the arts
don’t like to admit it], ② [music and painting are bound to suffer when
they are turned into mere vehicles for propaganda]. For ③
[propaganda appeals to the crudest and most vulgar feelings]: (for) ④
[look at the academic monstrosities produced by the official Nazi
painters]. What is more important, ⑤ [art must be an end in itself for the
artist], because ⑥ [the artist can do the best work only in an
atmosphere of complete freedom].
A diagram of
Beardsley said that the conclusion in this example is statement ②. Statement ④ needs the example
to be rewritten as a declarative sentence, e.g. "Academic monstrosities [were] from
produced by the official Nazi painters." Statement ① points out that the conclusion Beardsley's
Practical Logic
isn't accepted by everyone, but statement ① is omitted from the diagram because it
doesn't support the conclusion. Beardsley said that the logical relation between
statement ③ and statement ④ is unclear, but he proposed to diagram statement ④ as
supporting statement ③.

More recently, philosophy professor Maralee Harrell recommended the

following procedure:[13]

1. Identify all the claims being made by the author.

2. Rewrite them as independent statements, eliminating non-
essential words.
3. Identify which statements are premises, sub-conclusions, A box and line diagram of
and the main conclusion. Beardsley's example, produced
4. Provide missing, implied conclusions and implied premises. using Harrell's procedure
(This is optional depending on the purpose of the argument
map.)
5. Put the statements into boxes and draw a line between any boxes that are linked.
6. Indicate support from premise(s) to (sub)conclusion with arrows.

Diagramming as thinking

Argument maps are useful not only for representing and analyzing existing writings, but also for thinking
through issues as part of a problem-structuring process or writing process.[14] The use of such argument
analysis for thinking through issues has been called "reflective argumentation".[15]

An argument map, unlike a decision tree, does not tell how to make a decision, but the process of choosing
a coherent position (or reflective equilibrium) based on the structure of an argument map can be represented
as a decision tree.[16]

History

The philosophical origins and tradition of argument mapping

In the Elements of Logic, published in 1826 and issued in many subsequent editions,[17] Archbishop
Richard Whately gave probably the first form of an argument map, introducing it with the suggestion that
"many students probably will find it a very clear and convenient mode of exhibiting the logical analysis of
the course of argument, to draw it out in the form of a Tree, or Logical Division".
However, the technique did not become widely used, possibly
because for complex arguments, it involved much writing and
rewriting of the premises.

Legal philosopher and theorist John Henry Wigmore produced

maps of legal arguments using numbered premises in the early 20th
century,[18] based in part on the ideas of 19th century philosopher
Henry Sidgwick who used lines to indicate relations between
terms.[19]
From Whately's Elements of Logic
p467, 1852 edition
Anglophone argument diagramming in the
20th century

Dealing with the failure of formal reduction of informal

argumentation, English speaking argumentation theory developed
diagrammatic approaches to informal reasoning over a period of
fifty years.

Monroe Beardsley proposed a form of argument diagram in Wigmore evidence chart, from 1905
1950.[12] His method of marking up an argument and representing
its components with linked numbers became a standard and is still
widely used. He also introduced terminology that is still current describing convergent, divergent and serial
arguments.

Stephen Toulmin, in his groundbreaking and influential 1958 book

The Uses of Argument,[20] identified several elements to an
argument which have been generalized. The Toulmin diagram is
widely used in educational critical teaching.[21][22] Whilst Toulmin
eventually had a significant impact on the development of informal
logic he had little initial impact and the Beardsley approach to
diagramming arguments along with its later developments became
the standard approach in this field. Toulmin introduced something A Toulmin argument diagram,
that was missing from Beardsley's approach. In Beardsley, "arrows redrawn from his 1959 Uses of
link reasons and conclusions (but) no support is given to the Argument
implication itself between them. There is no theory, in other words,
of inference distinguished from logical deduction, the passage is
always deemed not controversial and not subject to support and
evaluation".[23] Toulmin introduced the concept of warrant which
"can be considered as representing the reasons behind the inference,
the backing that authorizes the link".[24]

Beardsley's approach was refined by Stephen N. Thomas, whose

1973 book Practical Reasoning In Natural Language[25] A generalised Toulmin diagram
introduced the term linked to describe arguments where the
premises necessarily worked together to support the conclusion.[26]
However, the actual distinction between dependent and independent premises had been made prior to
this.[26] The introduction of the linked structure made it possible for argument maps to represent missing or
"hidden" premises. In addition, Thomas suggested showing reasons both for and against a conclusion with
the reasons against being represented by dotted arrows. Thomas introduced the term argument diagram
and defined basic reasons as those that were not supported by any others in the argument and the final
conclusion as that which was not used to support any further conclusion.
Michael Scriven further developed the Beardsley-Thomas approach
in his 1976 book Reasoning.[27] Whereas Beardsley had said "At
first, write out the statements...after a little practice, refer to the
statements by number alone"[28] Scriven advocated clarifying the
meaning of the statements, listing them and then using a tree
Scriven's argument diagram. The
diagram with numbers to display the structure. Missing premises
explicit premise 1 is conjoined with
(unstated assumptions) were to be included and indicated with an additional unstated premises a and b
alphabetical letter instead of a number to mark them off from the to imply 2.
explicit statements. Scriven introduced counterarguments in his
diagrams, which Toulmin had defined as rebuttal.[29] This also
enabled the diagramming of "balance of consideration" arguments.[30]

In 1998 a series of large-scale argument maps released by Robert E. Horn stimulated widespread interest in
argument mapping.[31]

Development of computer-supported argument visualization

Human–computer interaction pioneer Douglas Engelbart, in a

famous 1962 technical report on intelligence augmentation,
envisioned in detail something like argument-mapping software as
an integral part of future intelligence-augmenting computer
interfaces:[34]

You usually think of an argument as a serial sequence

of steps of reason, beginning with known facts,
assumptions, etc., and progressing toward a
conclusion. Well, we do have to think through these The argument map tree schema of
steps serially, and we usually do list the steps serially Kialo with an example path through
when we write them out because that is pretty much it: all Con-argument boxes and some
the way our papers and books have to present them— Pros were emptied to illustrate an
they are pretty limiting in the symbol structuring they example path.[32]
enable us to use.  ... To help us get better
comprehension of the structure of an argument, we can
also call forth a schematic or graphical display. Once
the antecedent-consequent links have been established,
the computer can automatically construct such a
display for us.

— Douglas Engelbart, "Augmenting human

intellect: a conceptual framework" (1962)
A partial argument tree with claims
In the middle to late 1980s, hypertext software applications that and impact votes for arguments
supported argument visualization were developed, including illustrates one form of collective
NoteCards and gIBIS; the latter generated an on-screen graphical determination of argument weights
hypertextual map of an issue-based information system, a model of that is based on equal-weight user
argumentation developed by Werner Kunz and Horst Rittel in the voting.[33]
1970s. [35] In the 1990s, Tim van Gelder and colleagues developed
a series of software applications that permitted an argument map's
premises to be fully stated and edited in the diagram, rather than in a legend.[36] Van Gelder's first program,
Reason!Able, was superseded by two subsequent programs, bCisive and Rationale.[37]
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, many other software applications were developed for argument
visualization. By 2013, more than 60 such software systems existed.[38] In a 2010 survey of computer-
supported argumentation, Oliver Scheuer and colleagues noted that one of the differences between these
software systems is whether collaboration is supported.[39] In their survey, single-user argumentation
systems included Convince Me, iLogos, LARGO, Athena, Araucaria, and Carneades; small group
argumentation systems included Digalo, QuestMap, Compendium, Belvedere, and AcademicTalk;
community argumentation systems included Debategraph and Collaboratorium.[39] Free and open source
structured argumentation systems include Argdown[40] and Argüman.[41] As of 2020, the commercial
website Kialo is the most widely adopted argumentation-based deliberation system.[42]

Applications
Argument maps have been applied in many areas, but foremost in educational, academic and business
settings, including design rationale.[43] Argument maps are also used in forensic science,[44] law, and
artificial intelligence.[45] It has also been proposed that argument mapping has a great potential to improve
how we understand and execute democracy, in reference to the ongoing evolution of e-democracy.[46]

Difficulties with the philosophical tradition

It has traditionally been hard to separate teaching critical thinking from the philosophical tradition of
teaching logic and method, and most critical thinking textbooks have been written by philosophers.
Informal logic textbooks are replete with philosophical examples, but it is unclear whether the approach in
such textbooks transfers to non-philosophy students.[21] There appears to be little statistical effect after such
classes. Argument mapping, however, has a measurable effect according to many studies.[47] For example,
instruction in argument mapping has been shown to improve the critical thinking skills of business
students.[48]

Evidence that argument mapping improves critical thinking ability

There is empirical evidence that the skills developed in argument-mapping-based critical thinking courses
substantially transfer to critical thinking done without argument maps. Alvarez's meta-analysis found that
such critical thinking courses produced gains of around 0.70 SD, about twice as much as standard critical-
thinking courses.[49] The tests used in the reviewed studies were standard critical-thinking tests.

Limitations
When used with students in school, argument maps have limitations. They can "end up looking overly
complex" and can increase cognitive load beyond what is optimal for learning the course content.[50]
Creating maps requires extensive coaching and feedback from an experienced argument mapper.[50]
Depending on the learning objectives, the time spent coaching students to create good maps may be better
spent learning the course content instead of learning to diagram.[50] When the goal is to prompt students to
consider other perspectives and counterarguments, the goal may be more easily accomplished with other
methods such as discussion, rubrics, and a simple argument framework or simple graphic organizer such as
a vee diagram.[50] To maximize the strengths of argument mapping and minimize its limitations in the
classroom requires considering at what point in a learning progression the potential benefits of argument
mapping would outweigh its potential disadvantages.[50]

Standards

Argument Interchange Format

The Argument Interchange Format, AIF, is an international effort to develop a representational mechanism
for exchanging argument resources between research groups, tools, and domains using a semantically rich
language.[51] AIF-RDF is the extended ontology represented in the Resource Description Framework
Schema (RDFS) semantic language. Though AIF is still something of a moving target, it is settling
down.[52]

Legal Knowledge Interchange Format

The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF)[53] was developed in the European ESTRELLA
project[54] and designed with the goal of becoming a standard for representing and interchanging policy,
legislation and cases, including their justificatory arguments, in the legal domain. LKIF builds on and uses
the Web Ontology Language (OWL) for representing concepts and includes a reusable basic ontology of
legal concepts.

Argdown

Argdown is a Markdown-inspired lightweight markup language for complex argumentation.[40] It is

intended for exchanging arguments and argument reconstructions in a universally accessible and highly
human-readable way. The Argdown syntax is accompanied by tools that facilitate coding and transform
Argdown documents into argument maps.[55]

See also
Argument technology Logic and dialectic
Argumentation framework Logic of argumentation
Argumentation scheme Natural deduction – a logical system with
Bayesian network argument map-like notation
Collaborative decision-making software Practical arguments
Dialogue mapping Rhetorical structure theory
Flow (policy debate) Semantic tableau
Informal fallacy Wikidebate

Notes
1. Freeman 1991, pp. 49–90 2. For example: Davies 2012; Facione 2016,
pp. 88–112; Fisher 2004; Kelley 2014,
p. 73; Kunsch, Schnarr & van Tyle 2014;
Walton 2013, p. 10; van Gelder 2015
 3. For example: Culmsee & Awati 2013;
Hoffmann & Borenstein 2013; Metcalfe &
Sastrowardoyo 2013; Ricky Ohl,
"Computer supported argument
visualisation: modelling in consultative
democracy around wicked problems" (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=loa4BAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA360), in Okada, Buckingham
Shum & Sherborne 2014, pp. 361–380
4. For example: Davies 2010; Hunter 2008;
Okada, Buckingham Shum & Sherborne
2014, pp. vii–x, 4
5. Reed & Rowe 2007, p. 64
6. For example: Walton 2013, pp. 18–20
7. Reed, Walton & Macagno 2007, p. 2
8. Freeman 1991, pp. 49–90; Reed & Rowe
2007
9. Harrell 2010, p. 19
10. Freeman 1991, pp. 91–110; Harrell 2010,
p. 20
11. Beardsley 1950, pp. 18–19; Reed, Walton
& Macagno 2007, pp. 3–8; Harrell 2010,
pp. 19–21
12. Beardsley 1950
13. Harrell 2010, p. 28
14. This is related to the distinction between
"knowledge telling" and "knowledge
transforming" in composition studies: see,
for example, Chryssafidou 2014, pp. 38–
39, 413
15. For example: Hoffmann & Borenstein
2013; Hoffmann 2016; Hoffmann 2018
16. See section 4.2, "Argument maps as
reasoning tools", in Brun & Betz 2016
17. Whately 1834 (first published 1826)
18. Wigmore 1913
19. Goodwin 2000
20. Toulmin 2003 (first published 1958)
21. Simon, Erduran & Osborne 2006
22. Böttcher & Meisert 2011; Macagno &
Konstantinidou 2013
23. Reed, Walton & Macagno 2007, p. 8
24. Reed, Walton & Macagno 2007, p. 9
25. Thomas 1997 (first published 1973)
26. Snoeck Henkemans 2000, p. 453
27. Scriven 1976
28. Beardsley 1950, p. 21
29. Reed, Walton & Macagno 2007, pp. 10–11
30. van Eemeren et al. 1996, p. 175
31. Holmes 1999; Horn 1998; Robert E. Horn,
"Infrastructure for navigating
interdisciplinary debates: critical decisions
for representing argumentation" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20040612173036/http://
www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/topic/arg/artclC
mptrSpArgmttn.pdf), in Kirschner,
Buckingham Shum & Carr 2003, pp. 165–
184
32. Bolton et al. 2020
33. Durmus, Ladhak & Cardie 2019
34. Engelbart 1962; For an account of
Engelbart's place in the history of
computer-supported argument
visualization, see, e.g., Simon Buckingham
Shum, "The roots of computer supported
argument visualization" (http://simon.bucki
nghamshum.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/
03/VisualizingArgumentation-Roots.pdf), in
Kirschner, Buckingham Shum & Carr 2003,
pp. 3–24
35. Conklin & Begeman 1988, on gIBIS;
Halasz 1988, on NoteCards; Kirschner,
Buckingham Shum & Carr 2003, pp. 14–
15, on the place of both in the history of
computer-supported argument
visualization
36. van Gelder 2007
37. Berg et al. 2009
38. Walton 2013, p. 11
39. Scheuer et al. 2010
40. See Voigt 2014. The Argdown website is
argdown.org (https://argdown.org).
Argdown is currently developed as an
open source project:
"christianvoigt/argdown: a simple syntax
for complex argumentation" (https://github.
com/christianvoigt/argdown). GitHub.com.
Retrieved 2019-10-30.
41. Pührer 2017
42. De Liddo & Strube 2021
43. Kirschner, Buckingham Shum & Carr 2003;
Okada, Buckingham Shum & Sherborne
2014
44. For example: Bex 2011
45. For example: Verheij 2005; Reed, Walton
& Macagno 2007; Walton 2013
46. Hilbert 2009
47. Twardy 2004; Álvarez Ortiz 2007; Harrell
2008; Yanna Rider and Neil Thomason,
"Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of
argument mapping: LAMP guides the way
to better thinking" (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=loa4BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA112),
in Okada, Buckingham Shum & Sherborne
2014, pp. 113–134; Dwyer 2011; Davies
2012
48. Carrington et al. 2011; Kunsch, Schnarr &
van Tyle 2014
49. Álvarez Ortiz 2007, pp. 69–70 et seq
50. Nussbaum 2012, pp. 125, 133
51. See the AIF original draft description (http://
www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/people/chris/public
ations/2006/aif_final.pdf) (2006) and the
full AIF-RDF ontology specifications (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20161211004201/
http://www.argdf.org/source/ArgDF_Ontolo
gy.rdfs) in RDFS format.
52. Bex et al. 2013
53. Boer, Winkels & Vitali 2008
54. "Estrella project website" (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20160212103522/http://www.e
strellaproject.org/). estrellaproject.org.
Archived from the original (http://www.estre
llaproject.org/) on 2016-02-12. Retrieved
2016-02-24.
55. Argdown tools include a web browser
sandbox editor, an extension for Visual
Studio Code, and a command-line tool;
see "Getting started" (https://argdown.org/g
uide/). argdown.org. Retrieved 2019-10-30.

References
Álvarez Ortiz, Claudia María (2007). Does philosophy improve critical thinking skills? (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20120708000509/http://images.austhink.com/pdf/Claudia-Alvarez-t
hesis.pdf) (PDF) (M.A. thesis). Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne.
OCLC 271475715 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/271475715). Archived from the original (htt
p://images.austhink.com/pdf/Claudia-Alvarez-thesis.pdf) (PDF) on 2012-07-08.
Beardsley, Monroe C. (1950). Practical logic. New York: Prentice-Hall. OCLC 4318971 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4318971). A shorter version was published as Thinking Straight;
the most recent edition is: Beardsley, Monroe C. (1975). Thinking straight: principles of
reasoning for readers and writers (https://archive.org/details/thinkingstraight0000bear)
(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0139182358. OCLC 1168973 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1168973).
Berg, Timo ter; van Gelder, Tim; Patterson, Fiona; Teppema, Sytske (2009). Critical thinking:
reasoning and communicating with Rationale. Amsterdam: Pearson Education Benelux.
ISBN 978-9043018012. OCLC 301884530 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/301884530).
Bex, Floris J. (2011). Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Law
and philosophy library. Vol. 92. Dordrecht; New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-
0140-3 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-94-007-0140-3). ISBN 9789400701397.
OCLC 663950184 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/663950184). S2CID 26791185 (https://api.
semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:26791185).
Bex, Floris J.; Modgil, Sanjay; Prakken, Henry; Reed, Chris (2013). "On logical
specifications of the Argument Interchange Format" (http://www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/people/chr
is/publications/2013/AIF-ASPIC-JLC-Final.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Logic and Computation. 23
(5): 951–989. doi:10.1093/logcom/exs033 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Flogcom%2Fexs033).
Boer, Alexander; Winkels, Radboud; Vitali, Fabio (2008). "MetaLex XML and the Legal
Knowledge Interchange Format" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225708550). In
Casanovas, Pompeu; Sartor, Giovanni; Casellas, Núria; Rubino, Rossella (eds.).
Computable models of the law: languages, dialogues, games, ontologies. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science. Vol. 4884. Berlin; New York: Springer. pp. 21–41. doi:10.1007/978-3-
540-85569-9_2 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-540-85569-9_2). ISBN 9783540855682.
OCLC 244765580 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/244765580). Retrieved 2016-02-24.
Bolton, Eric; Calderwood, Alex; Christensen, Niles; Kafrouni, Jerome; Drori, Iddo (1
December 2020). "High quality real-time structured debate generation". arXiv:2012.00209 (h
ttps://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00209) [cs.CL (https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.CL)].
Böttcher, Florian; Meisert, Anke (February 2011). "Argumentation in science education: a
model-based framework". Science & Education. 20 (2): 103–140.
Bibcode:2011Sc&Ed..20..103B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sc&Ed..20..103B).
doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11191-010-9304-5).
S2CID 119954511 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:119954511).
Brun, Georg; Betz, Gregor (2016). "Analysing practical argumentation" (http://www.georgbru
n.ch/publications/Brun-Betz-AnalysingPracticalArgumentation.pdf) (PDF). In Hansson, Sven
Ove; Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude (eds.). The argumentative turn in policy analysis: reasoning
about uncertainty. Logic, argumentation & reasoning. Vol. 10. Cham; New York: Springer-
Verlag. pp. 39–77. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_3 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319
-30549-3_3). ISBN 9783319305479. OCLC 950884495 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/9508
84495).
Carrington, Michal; Chen, Richard; Davies, Martin; Kaur, Jagjit; Neville, Benjamin (June
2011). "The effectiveness of a single intervention of computer‐aided argument mapping in a
marketing and a financial accounting subject" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232
947753). Higher Education Research & Development. 30 (3): 387–403.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.559197 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F07294360.2011.559197).
S2CID 144862766 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144862766). Retrieved
2016-02-24.
Chryssafidou, Evangelia (May 2014). Argument diagramming and planning cognition in
argumentative writing (http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/5048/) (Ph.D. thesis). Birmingham, UK:
University of Birmingham. OCLC 890146780 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/890146780).
Conklin, E. Jeffrey; Begeman, Michael L. (October 1988). "gIBIS: a hypertext tool for
exploratory policy discussion". ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 6 (4): 303–331.
doi:10.1145/58566.59297 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F58566.59297). S2CID 2609461 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2609461).
Culmsee, Paul; Awati, Kailash (2013) [2011]. "Chapter 7: Visualising reasoning, and
Chapter 8: Argumentation-based rationale" (https://books.google.com/books?id=Gb2uuT1zr
AAC&pg=PA153). The heretic's guide to best practices: the reality of managing complex
problems in organisations. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, Inc. pp. 153–211.
ISBN 9781462058549. OCLC 767703320 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/767703320).
Davies, W. Martin (November 2010). "Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument
mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?". Higher Education. 62 (3): 279–301.
doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10734-010-9387-6).
S2CID 44953977 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:44953977).
Davies, W. Martin (Summer 2012). "Computer-aided argument mapping as a tool for
teaching critical thinking" (https://philpapers.org/rec/DAVCAM-8). International Journal of
Learning and Media. 4 (3–4): 79–84. doi:10.1162/IJLM_a_00106 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2
FIJLM_a_00106).
De Liddo, Anna; Strube, Rosa (June 2021). "Understanding failures and potentials of
argumentation tools for public deliberation". In Cech, Florian; Farnham, Shelly (eds.). C&T
'21: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference On Communities & Technologies:
Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech: June 21–25, 2021. C&T. New York: Association for
Computing Machinery. pp. 75–88. doi:10.1145/3461564.3461584 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2
F3461564.3461584). ISBN 9781450390569. OCLC 1261323348 (https://www.worldcat.org/
oclc/1261323348). S2CID 235494842 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:23549484
2).
Durmus, Esin; Ladhak, Faisal; Cardie, Claire (2019). "The role of pragmatic and discourse
context in determining argument impact". Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical
Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on
Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Hong Kong: Association for
Computational Linguistics. pp. 5667–5677. arXiv:2004.03034 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.030
34). doi:10.18653/v1/D19-1568 (https://doi.org/10.18653%2Fv1%2FD19-1568).
S2CID 202768765 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:202768765).
Dwyer, Christopher Peter (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool (htt
p://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10379/2617/C.Dwyer-PhD%20Thesis%
20Psychology.pdf) (PDF) (Ph.D. thesis). School of Psychology, National University of
Ireland, Galway. OCLC 812818648 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/812818648). Retrieved
2016-02-24.
van Eemeren, Frans H.; Grootendorst, Rob; Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca; Blair, J.
Anthony; Johnson, Ralph H.; Krabbe, Erik C. W.; Plantin, Christian; Walton, Douglas N.;
Willard, Charles A.; Woods, John (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a
handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments (https://archive.org/det
ails/fundamentalsofar0000eeme). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
doi:10.4324/9780203811306 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9780203811306). ISBN 978-
0805818611. OCLC 33970847 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/33970847).
Engelbart, Douglas C. (1962). Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework (https://
web.archive.org/web/20110504035147/http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.ht
ml). Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. OCLC 8671016 (https://www.worldcat.org/
oclc/8671016). Archived from the original (http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-390
6.html) on 2011-05-04. Retrieved 2018-04-09.
Facione, Peter A. (2016) [2011]. THINK critically (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. ISBN 978-
0133909661. OCLC 893099404 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/893099404).
Fisher, Alec (2004) [1988]. The logic of real arguments (https://books.google.com/books?id=
Q2a_RtDZUGgC) (2nd ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818455 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FCBO9780511818455).
ISBN 978-0521654814. OCLC 54400059 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54400059).
Retrieved 2016-02-24.
Freeman, James B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of
argument structure (https://books.google.com/books?id=ScvV9riTOGsC). Berlin; New York:
Foris Publications. ISBN 978-3110133905. OCLC 24429943 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/
24429943). Retrieved 2016-02-24.
van Gelder, Tim (2007). "The rationale for Rationale" (https://sites.google.com/site/timvangel
der/publications-1/therationaleforrationale/TheRationaleforRationale.pdf) (PDF). Law,
Probability and Risk. 6 (1–4): 23–42. doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm032 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Flp
r%2Fmgm032).
van Gelder, Tim (2015). "Using argument mapping to improve critical thinking skills". In
Davies, Martin; Barnett, Ronald (eds.). The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher
education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 183–192. doi:10.1057/9781137378057_12 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1057%2F9781137378057_12). ISBN 9781137378033. OCLC 894935460
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/894935460).
Goodwin, Jean (2000). "Wigmore's chart method" (http://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/ledd
y/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2278). Informal Logic. 20 (3): 223–243.
doi:10.22329/il.v20i3.2278 (https://doi.org/10.22329%2Fil.v20i3.2278).
Halasz, Frank G. (July 1988). "Reflections on NoteCards: seven issues for the next
generation of hypermedia systems". Communications of the ACM. 31 (7): 836–852.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.124.2308 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.124.
2308). doi:10.1145/48511.48514 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F48511.48514).
Harrell, Maralee (December 2008). "No computer program required: even pencil-and-paper
argument mapping improves critical-thinking skills" (https://web.archive.org/web/201312290
12710/http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/HarrellTeachingPhilosophy2008.pdf)
(PDF). Teaching Philosophy. 31 (4): 351–374. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831437 (https://doi.
org/10.5840%2Fteachphil200831437). S2CID 7340407 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:7340407). Archived from the original (http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/Harr
ellTeachingPhilosophy2008.pdf) (PDF) on 2013-12-29.
Harrell, Maralee (August 2010). "Creating argument diagrams" (https://www.academia.edu/7
72321). academia.edu.
Hilbert, Martin (April 2009). "The maturing concept of e-democracy: from e-voting and online
consultations to democratic value out of jumbled online chatter" (http://www.martinhilbert.net/
e-democracyHilbertJITP.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Information Technology and Politics. 6 (2):
87–110. doi:10.1080/19331680802715242 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F1933168080271524
2). S2CID 15790311 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15790311).
Hoffmann, Michael H. G. (November 2016). "Reflective argumentation: a cognitive function
of arguing". Argumentation. 30 (4): 365–397. doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9388-9 (https://doi.or
g/10.1007%2Fs10503-015-9388-9). S2CID 146779158 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:146779158).
Hoffmann, Michael H. G. (March 2018). "Stimulating reflection and self-correcting reasoning
through argument mapping: three approaches". Topoi. 37 (1): 185–199. doi:10.1007/s11245-
016-9408-x (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11245-016-9408-x). S2CID 123754143 (https://api.
semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:123754143).
Hoffmann, Michael H. G.; Borenstein, Jason (February 2013). "Understanding ill-structured
engineering ethics problems through a collaborative learning and argument visualization
approach" (http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/39/). Science and Engineering
Ethics. 20 (1): 261–276. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9430-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11948
-013-9430-y). PMID 23420467 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23420467).
S2CID 14247458 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14247458).
Holmes, Bob (10 July 1999). "Beyond words" (https://web.archive.org/web/2008092806222
6/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321944.700-beyond-words.html). New Scientist.
No. 2194. Archived from the original (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321944.700-
beyond-words.html) on 28 September 2008.
Horn, Robert E. (1998). Visual language: global communication for the 21st century (https://a
rchive.org/details/visuallanguagegl0000horn). Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU, Inc.
ISBN 978-1892637093. OCLC 41138655 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41138655).
Hunter, Lawrie (2008). "Cmap linking phrase constraint for the structural narrowing of
constructivist second language tasks" (https://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008papers/cmc2008-p021.p
df) (PDF). In Cañas, Alberto J.; Reiska, Priit; Åhlberg, Mauri K.; Novak, Joseph Donald
(eds.). CMC 2008: Third International Conference on Concept Mapping, Tallinn, Estonia and
Helsinki, Finland, 22–25 September 2008: proceedings. Vol. 1. Tallinn: Tallinn University.
pp. 146–151. ISBN 9789985585849.
Kelley, David (2014) [1988]. The art of reasoning: an introduction to logic and critical thinking
(4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0393930788. OCLC 849801096 (h
ttps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/849801096).
Kirschner, Paul Arthur; Buckingham Shum, Simon J; Carr, Chad S, eds. (2003). Visualizing
argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (https://books.
google.com/books?id=dNijwv-my_kC). Computer supported cooperative work. New York:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4471-0037-9).
ISBN 978-1852336646. OCLC 50676911 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50676911).
S2CID 46267938 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:46267938). Retrieved
2016-02-24.
Kunsch, David W.; Schnarr, Karin; van Tyle, Russell (November 2014). "The use of
argument mapping to enhance critical thinking skills in business education". Journal of
Education for Business. 89 (8): 403–410. doi:10.1080/08832323.2014.925416 (https://doi.or
g/10.1080%2F08832323.2014.925416). S2CID 38666976 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:38666976).
Macagno, Fabrizio; Konstantinidou, Aikaterini (August 2013). "What students' arguments
can tell us: using argumentation schemes in science education". Argumentation. 27 (3):
225–243. doi:10.1007/s10503-012-9284-5 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10503-012-9284-5).
S2CID 189942834 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:189942834). SSRN 2185945
(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2185945).
Metcalfe, Mike; Sastrowardoyo, Saras (November 2013). "Complex project
conceptualisation and argument mapping". International Journal of Project Management. 31
(8): 1129–1138. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.004 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2
013.01.004).
Nussbaum, E. Michael (2012). "Argumentation and student-centered learning
environments". In Jonassen, David H.; Land, Susan M. (eds.). Theoretical foundations of
learning environments (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 114–141.
doi:10.4324/9780203813799 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9780203813799).
ISBN 9780415894210.
Okada, Alexandra; Buckingham Shum, Simon J; Sherborne, Tony, eds. (2014) [2008].
Knowledge cartography: software tools and mapping techniques (https://books.google.com/
books?id=loa4BAAAQBAJ). Advanced information and knowledge processing (2nd ed.).
New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-6470-8 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4471
-6470-8). ISBN 9781447164692. OCLC 890438015 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8904380
15). S2CID 28008938 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:28008938). Retrieved
2016-02-24.
Pührer, Jörg (2017). "ArgueApply: a mobile app for argumentation". Logic Programming and
Nonmonotonic Reasoning: 14th International Conference, LPNMR 2017, Espoo, Finland,
July 3–6, 2017: proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 10377. Cham:
Springer. pp. 250–262. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61660-5_23 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-
3-319-61660-5_23). ISBN 978-3319616599.
Reed, Chris; Rowe, Glenn (2007). "A pluralist approach to argument diagramming" (http://lpr.
oxfordjournals.org/content/6/1-4/59.full.pdf) (PDF). Law, Probability and Risk. 6 (1–4): 59–
85. doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm030 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Flpr%2Fmgm030). Retrieved
2016-02-24.
Reed, Chris; Walton, Douglas; Macagno, Fabrizio (March 2007). "Argument diagramming in
logic, law and artificial intelligence" (https://www.academia.edu/2992281). The Knowledge
Engineering Review. 22 (1): 87. doi:10.1017/S0269888907001051 (https://doi.org/10.1017%
2FS0269888907001051). S2CID 26294789 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2629
4789).
Scheuer, Oliver; Loll, Frank; Pinkwart, Niels; McLaren, Bruce M. (2010). "Computer-
supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art" (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cm
u.edu/Web/People/bmclaren/pubs/ScheuerEtAl-CompSupportedArgStateOfTheArt-IJCSCL
2010.pdf) (PDF). International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 5 (1):
43–102. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.322.2522 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.
1.1.322.2522). doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11412-009-908
0-x). S2CID 4473082 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4473082).
Scriven, Michael (1976). Reasoning (https://archive.org/details/reasoning0000scri). New
York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0070558823. OCLC 2800373 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2
800373).
Simon, Shirley; Erduran, Sibel; Osborne, Jonathan (2006). "Learning to teach
argumentation: research and development in the science classroom" (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20150919030637/https://cset.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/documents/publicati
ons/Simon-Learning%20to%20Teach%20Argumentation.pdf) (PDF). International Journal of
Science Education. 28 (2–3): 235–260. Bibcode:2006IJSEd..28..235S (https://ui.adsabs.har
vard.edu/abs/2006IJSEd..28..235S). doi:10.1080/09500690500336957 (https://doi.org/10.10
80%2F09500690500336957). S2CID 145163500 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
145163500). Archived from the original (http://cset.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/docum
ents/publications/Simon-Learning%20to%20Teach%20Argumentation.pdf) (PDF) on 2015-
09-19. Retrieved 2015-01-12.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca (November 2000). "State-of-the-art: the structure of
argumentation". Argumentation. 14 (4): 447–473. doi:10.1023/A:1007800305762 (https://doi.
org/10.1023%2FA%3A1007800305762). S2CID 140364997 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:140364997).
Thomas, Stephen N. (1997) [1973]. Practical reasoning in natural language (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0136782698. OCLC 34745923 (https://www.worl
dcat.org/oclc/34745923).
Toulmin, Stephen E. (2003) [1958]. The uses of argument (https://archive.org/details/usesofa
rgument0000toul_v7v3) (Updated ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FCBO9780511840005).
ISBN 978-0521534833. OCLC 57253830 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57253830).
Retrieved 2016-02-24.
Twardy, Charles R. (June 2004). "Argument maps improve critical thinking" (http://cogprints.
org/3008/1/reasonpaper.pdf) (PDF). Teaching Philosophy. 27 (2): 95–116.
doi:10.5840/teachphil200427213 (https://doi.org/10.5840%2Fteachphil200427213).
Verheij, Bart (2005). Virtual arguments: on the design of argument assistants for lawyers and
other arguers. Information technology & law series. Vol. 6. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
ISBN 9789067041904. OCLC 59617214 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/59617214).
Voigt, Christian (2014). "Argdown and the stacked masonry layout: two user interfaces for
non-expert users" (https://books.google.com/books?id=T53YBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA483). In
Parsons, Simon; Oren, Nir; Reed, Chris; Cerutti, Federico (eds.). Computational models of
argument: proceedings of COMMA 2014. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications.
Vol. 266. Amsterdam: IOS Press. pp. 483–484. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-483 (https://
doi.org/10.3233%2F978-1-61499-436-7-483). ISBN 9781614994367. OCLC 894508689 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/894508689).
 Walton, Douglas N. (2013). Methods of argumentation (https://books.google.com/books?id=v
aU0AAAAQBAJ). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139600187 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FCBO9781139600187).
ISBN 978-1107677333. OCLC 830523850 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/830523850).
Retrieved 2016-02-24.
Whately, Richard (1834) [1826]. Elements of logic: comprising the substance of the article in
the Encyclopædia metropolitana: with additions, &c (https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_5mg
AAAAAMAAJ) (5th ed.). London: B. Fellowes. OCLC 1739330 (https://www.worldcat.org/ocl
c/1739330). Retrieved 2016-02-24.
Wigmore, John Henry (1913). The principles of judicial proof: as given by logic, psychology,
and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials (https://archive.org/details/principlesj
udic00wigmgoog). Boston: Little Brown. OCLC 1938596 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1938
596). Retrieved 2016-02-24.

Further reading
Barstow, Brendan; Fazio, Lisa; Lippman, Jordan; Falakmasir, Mohammad; Schunn,
Christian D.; Ashley, Kevin D. (December 2017). "The impacts of domain-general vs.
domain-specific diagramming tools on writing". International Journal of Artificial Intelligence
in Education. 27 (4): 671–693. doi:10.1007/s40593-016-0130-z (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs
40593-016-0130-z). S2CID 5567454 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5567454).
Cahill, Ann J.; Bloch-Schulman, Stephen (March 2012). "Argumentation step-by-step:
learning critical thinking through deliberate practice" (http://www.elon.edu/u/academics/arts-
and-sciences/philosophy/wp-content/uploads/sites/258/2017/10/AJC-step-by-step-article_.p
df) (PDF). Teaching Philosophy. 35 (1): 41–62. doi:10.5840/teachphil20123514 (https://doi.o
rg/10.5840%2Fteachphil20123514).
Cullen, Simon (30 August 2017). "Philosophy mapped" (http://www.philmaps.com/).
philmaps.com. Retrieved 1 September 2017. Free online resources for teachers and
students interested in argument mapping in philosophy.
van Eemeren, Frans H.; Garssen, Bart; Krabbe, Erik C. W.; Snoeck Henkemans, A.
Francisca; Verheij, Bart; Wagemans, Jean H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory.
New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-90-481
-9473-5). ISBN 9789048194728. OCLC 871004444 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8710044
44).
Facione, Peter A.; Facione, Noreen C. (2007). Thinking and reasoning in human decision
making: the method of argument and heuristic analysis. Milbrae, CA: California Academic
Press. ISBN 978-1891557583. OCLC 182039452 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/18203945
2).
van Gelder, Tim (17 February 2009). "What is argument mapping?" (http://timvangelder.com/
2009/02/17/what-is-argument-mapping/). timvangelder.com. Retrieved 12 January 2015.
Harrell, Maralee (June 2005). "Using argument diagramming software in the classroom" (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20060907141143/http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/Argu
mentDiagramsInClassroom.pdf) (PDF). Teaching Philosophy. 28 (2): 163–177.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.526.7982 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.526.
7982). doi:10.5840/teachphil200528222 (https://doi.org/10.5840%2Fteachphil200528222).
S2CID 5573216 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5573216). Archived from the
original (http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/ArgumentDiagramsInClassroom.pdf)
(PDF) on 2006-09-07.
 Harrell, Maralee; Wetzel, Danielle (2015). "Using argument diagramming to teach critical
thinking in a first-year writing course" (https://philpapers.org/rec/HARUAD-9). In Davies,
Martin; Barnett, Ronald (eds.). The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher
education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 213–232. doi:10.1057/9781137378057_14 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1057%2F9781137378057_14). ISBN 9781137378033. OCLC 894935460
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/894935460).
Schneider, Jodi; Groza, Tudor; Passant, Alexandre (April 2013). "A review of argumentation
for the social semantic web" (http://semantic-web-journal.org/sites/default/files/swj138_0.pdf)
(PDF). Semantic Web. 4 (2): 159–218. doi:10.3233/SW-2012-0073 (https://doi.org/10.3233%
2FSW-2012-0073).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_map&oldid=1164473574"