Screenshot of the Argdown Sandbox

Argunet - a brief look back

We (Gregor Betz, Helen Bohse, Sebastian Cacean, David Schneider, and myself) started working on Argunet back in 2006 and published the first version in 2007 (with funding from the Free University Berlin). Over the years it has been downloaded more than 50.000 times, which is a lot, given the small number of argument mapping enthusiasts and the limited publicity of the software.

But first and foremost, we developed Argunet because we needed such a tool in our own work. And overall it did its job well! We have used it for many different purposes, be it in philosophy seminars, in research projects, for reconstructing huge debates, or for the moderation of live events.

Over time, however, three problems emerged. By design and through the technology used, Argunet is a “monolithic” application:

• Instead of “doing one thing and doing it well”, Argunet tries to be the swiss army knife of argument mapping. This makes it a comparatively large and complex software that is neither easy to use, nor to maintain.
• Because of the technology used, Argunet became more and more difficult to maintain with our limited resources. Argunet is a Java application and uses the Eclipse application framework. Eclipse is known for its complexity and has continuously evolved over the years. Working on Argunet on our free time, we never could keep up, let alone extend Argunet with new features. Differences between operating systems only made matters worse and caused a lot of installation problems.
• Argunet is closely coupled to the Eclipse framework and can not be used as a part of other software that use other application frameworks. Other software can neither directly interact with Argunet nor can its data be read or written without extra export and import steps. Instead, Argunet tries to do everything “on its own”. Additionally, it is very complicated to extend the existing code base with new plugins.

At some point we had to decide if we should rather invest a huge effort into practically rewriting Argunet, or if it made more sense to completely rethink our approach and start anew. We decided to do the latter.

What will happen with Argunet?

As a result of this decision, we currently do not plan to release any new Argunet versions.

This site will remain online and you can still download and use Argunet. If you have installation problems, take a look at the questions asked in the google group or post a new question. We will still try to answer your questions as best as we can.

We are considering, however, to provide additional tools (possibly Argunet Export Plugins) that allow you to save your existing Argunet debates as Argdown files. (If you want to support us in doing so, please get in touch!)

Argdown’s origin story

Around 2012 I started experimenting with combining argument mapping with real-time chat and forum applications. I needed an intuitive way how non-expert users could “augment” their text messages so that it software could extract and visualize the argumentative structure of their discussions. My idea was to define a syntax for text messages that was as easy to use as writing a Twitter message. The inspiration for this syntax was Markdown, so I simply called the new syntax “Argdown”.

While I ultimately abandoned the prototype in pursuit of other projects, Argdown was so much fun to use that we (by now the DebateLab Karlsruhe) finally decided to develop it into a free and open software tool that was expressive enough to let experts logically reconstruct complex argumentation. I released the first version in 2017 and internally we started using it more and more, until it completely replaced Argunet in our work. This week I finally released version 1.0.0 together with an extensive documentation. Argdown is now ready to be used by anyone interested in argument mapping.

What is Argdown?

Argdown itself is not a software, but a syntax. It is a light-weight markup language that is easy to read and write for humans and for computers alike (to borrow a slogan from Markdown). That means that it consists of a set of simple rules how to format text in a text file. By following these rules you can write an Argdown file in any text editor you like.

If you have no experience with markup languages like Markdown, Wikitext or HTML, using a text editor and a markup language to create argument maps can seem daunting and unintuitive. But in fact it is much easier than you might think and has many advantages:

• Easy to learn, fast to use: The basic rules can be learned in three minutes and after that you will already be able to do many things a lot faster in Argdown using your keyboard, than it took you in Argunet using your mouse. Argdown was not invented as toy for nerds. It was originally invented for making argument mapping accessible to everyone. This remains one of our core development goals.
• No distraction: Additionally, using Argdown is not only faster, it also allows you to focus on the essentials. Because you are never leaving your text editor, you can completely concentrate on your writing instead of being distracted by the graphical aspects of your map or the quirks of your editor.
• Easy access: Because they are simple text files, you can merge or split up Argdown files by copy & paste. You can send them as E-Mail or even per text message. You can use a version control system like git to archive different versions of it and collaborate with other authors.

Give it a try! Just read the three-minute introduction on the start page of the Argdown documentation. After that you are ready to play with Argdown in our browser sandbox.

(If you are a “visual thinker” you still might prefer to “draw” argument maps with Argunet, instead of “writing” them with Argdown. In the future we plan to add an Argdown-based map editor that will suit your needs. For now, just keep using Argunet.)

Our new software tools

Screenshot of the VS Code extension

Software that reads and writes Argdown can be implemented in different languages and optimized for different contexts and users. I have written a parser (an Argdown reader) in JavaScript, so that it can run in the browser, as well as on any server or computer (using Node.js). Based on this parser, we have so far released three tools:

• A browser sandbox for demonstration purposes.
• An extension for VS Code, on of the best text editors around. The extension provides a live map preview, code highlighting and many other features useful for editing Argdown documents.
• A commandline tool for advanced users.

Screenshot of the Argdown Sandbox

Our Argdown tool chain is modular at its core, and framework-agnostic. This means

• it can be integrated without much effort into other applications or application frameworks. An example is the Argdown documentation itself, which is compiled from Markdown files containing Argdown code snippets. It did not take a lot of effort to add a plugin to Markdown-It that parses these snippets and inserts widgets with svg argument maps into the compiled HTML files.
• it can be easily extended by adding custom plugins via configuration files without having to wait for new Argdown releases and without having to write your own Argdown application.
• other developers can also develop new tools completely independent of our own tools and still be able to interact with them through Argdown
• because we rely on the syntax and a simple text editor as our user interface we can rapidly release new features and develop new software tools for specific use cases without having to spend time on developing new editing features on the GUI side.

What Argdown can do for you

Right now, Argdown has nearly reached “feature parity” with Argunet and surpasses it in many respects. In this section I will first list features that Argdown shares with Argunet. After that I will list the exciting new capabilities that make Argdown the superior software. Lastly, I will list the Argunet features that Argdown is not (yet) able to match.

Features shared with Argunet

Just like in Argunet, in Argdown you can

• create an argument map that looks similar to an Argunet argument map
• give your statements and arguments titles
• assign short descriptions to your arguments
• quickly sketch attack and support relations between statements and arguments in a debate
• logically reconstruct premise-conclusion structures of complex arguments
• precisely define which premises of an argument are attacked or supported
• group and colorize statements and arguments
• create different views of the same debate
• automatically layout your argument map
• assign multiple statements to the same equivalence class and define logical relations between these equivalence classes.
• export your maps to dot, svg, png or pdf

New features

Unlike in Argunet, in Argdown you can

• tag arguments and statements and automatically colorize them based on your tags
• create hierarchies of groups (groups can now contain other groups)
• quickly change grouping or colorization through configuration without changing the underlying data
• use all the advanced features of a professional code editor: syntax highlighting, code diagnostics (linting), code completion, symbol search, hierarchical document outline.
• focus on rapidly reconstructing and comment your debate in the same text document using rich text formatting, lists and headings for structuring your document, without being distracted by presentational details (colors, layout, grouping)
• use additional relations (contrary, contradiction, entailment, undercut)
• write custom plugins and add them to the Argdown tool chain in your config file
• add arbitrary meta data in YAML format (for use in custom plugins)
• export your data to JSON for further use in other software tools
• export your complete document to HTML
• use version-control systems such as Git to track changes and coordinate the work of multiple analysts

Missing features

Unlike in Argunet, in Argdown you can not

• manually layout your argument map
• export to GraphML and import to yEd for editing
• collaborate online with other users on the same file

The future

We already have a lot of ideas for new features and tools, but we will likely concentrate our work on

• integrating Argdown into different environments and workflows (Embedabble widget for websites and blogs, Markdown & Latex integration, GraphML export for map layout in yEd)
• adding a simply WYSIWIG map editor

Argdown is still a young software. We think it is stable enough to be used in your work but it definitely needs more testing. If you should encounter any bugs or have ideas how to improve the software, visit the Github repository and post an issue. For general feedback or if you want to contribute to the project, simply write us a mail. We appreciate your help!

The post A new beginning: introducing Argdown appeared first on Argunet.

A live reconstruction at the future conference of the German green party.

How can argument maps be used for debate moderation? In this post three short “live reconstruction” case studies from 2007, 2011 and 2014 are presented.

In a “live reconstruction” the arguments of the statements made during a live discussion are reconstructed and visualised in real-time during the event. The most impressive “live reconstruction” technology so far comes from ARG-tech at the University of Dundee. ARG-tech used a huge touchscreen, the “AnalysisWall”, and a large team of analysts to transcribe, segment and analyse an episode of the BBC radio show “The Moral Maze” in 2012.

The technology we have used so far has been much simpler. But the following use cases show that the problems are not so much of technical but of a methodological nature. Even if working perfectly, it is an open question whether the technology is just a nice gimmick or if it produces real benefits for the participants of live discussions. The following cases show that such benefits are difficult to achieve if analysts, moderators, clients and participants have conflicting aims and expectations.

What is a “live reconstruction”?

Our original concept of “live reconstruction” can be characterized in the following way:

• participants argue about a concrete controversial thesis or question.
• three to four analysts work on the reconstruction of the debate with Argunet. Because Argunet is a client-server software they can work on the same map from different computers,
  • inserting important theses,
  • summarizing the arguments in short descriptions and giving them telling titles (there is not enough time for detailed logical reconstruction),
  • sketching the relations between arguments and theses,
  • layouting the argument graph.
• the emerging argument map is projected live on a big screen. Arguments ‘magically’ pop up one by one.
• the moderator uses the resulting map to structure the ongoing debate and to summarize results, e.g. she
  • asks participants whether the reconstruction is adequate,
  • directs attention to arguments that were neglected or to implicit assumptions that were revealed,
  • shows what the central claims are and what dialectical role they play in different arguments,
• participants can refer to specific arguments in the debate in order to
  • express their agreement or disagreement,
  • add new rebuttals or support, or
  • clarify their previously made statements.
• the argument map can be used to document the discussion results.

First case study: Long night of the sciences 2007

2007 was the first time we gave the “live reconstruction” a try at the “Lange Nacht der Wissenschaft” (long night of the sciences) a popular event in Berlin, where universities and other science institutions open up for the general public.

Overall this has been a very positive experience:

• the argument map was a useful moderation tool that made it easier for the moderator to keep an overview,
• participants used the map in their statements to refer to arguments,
• participants collaborated on making the map better and more representative instead of pushing and clinging to their points of view,
• this led to structured, fair and non-confrontative discussion.

At the time we were quite enthusiastic about the prospects of the method. Time has shown that this success depended crucially on the non-typical “ideal” conditions of this use case:

• it was a pro bono experiment, there were no costs to consider,
• the moderator was part of our team and an expert in argumentation theory,
• guests were expecting an experiment and came to learn about the method of argument analysis and reconstruction,
• the topic of the debate was secondary and was decided upon by the audience at the beginning of the experiment.

Second case study: Future Congress of the German Green Party 2011 (Zukunftskongress der Grünen)

Our team at work at the future conference.

In 2011 the German Green Party organized a “Future Congress” as an open and innovative forum for discussions about their party platform. The congress was organized in 14 workshops, some of which were moderated by the party leaders Claudia Roth and Cem Özdemir. We were hired to conduct live reconstructions of two workshops, one on “social justice” and one on a “common European defence policy”. Both workshops were moderated by Cem Özdemir. Our team consisted of one coordinator, two “reconstruction analysts” and one co-moderator. The boundary conditions were challenging, to say the least:

• a huge audience and speakers list,
• limited time,
• the first topic was very broad and there was no clear focus of the discussion,
• many statements from the audience were very emotional and vague,
• the moderator was not an expert in argumentation theory, though we had the opportunity to introduce him to our method beforehand,
• the moderator was a party leader, and had to meet many expectations that were not easily reconcilable with using argument maps to structure the debate and keep the participants focused on specific points,
• because of this and the time restrictions our co-moderator could only play a small and very limited role.

Not all conditions were unfavorable. The Green Party agreed to pay for a team of four experts which is quite extraordinary, considering these were moderation expenses alone. Even with such a large team the reconstruction was very exhausting, stressful and difficult for the team; and it was hard to assess whether the live projection brought any benefits for the discussion, because of the lack of interaction. Though the feedback we got was very positive, we were somewhat disillusioned.

Third case study: Annual convention of the German ethics council 2014

In 2014 we were hired by the German Ethics Council for its annual convention and gave the concept another chance: In a collaboration with Ralph Groetker from explorat we tried to develop ideas to overcome the weaknesses of our concept. We changed the process to make it financially more feasible, decrease the workload for the analysts and increase the benefits of the resulting maps. This process was tested in three parallel workshops on “reproductive ethics”. The changes were the following:

• Due to financial limitations we could only use one analyst per workshop.
• This made it impossible to create a new reconstruction from scratch live; instead we prepared maps beforehand that were based on an online survey of the invited guests and additional research.
• These maps were given to the members of the Ethics Council and their staff beforehand. In several rounds they were revised and enhanced.
• Every guest got a conference binder that included these argument maps; additionally the maps were presented on big posters at the conference.
• These maps were than augmented live with simple comments that described important claims and additional arguments of the participants, without reconstructing the precise relations of these arguments.
• Directly after the workshops the new arguments were added with post-its to the posters.
• Additionally the maps were used to document the results.
• To simplify the process even more we agreed to use the mindmapping software XMind instead of Argunet. Though this made it possible to use icons as mnemonic devices there were some limitations we think speak against using such generic software in the future (for example, the graph has to be hierarchic and argument groups have to be sub-trees).

We think that these changes proved largely sucessful. It made a huge difference for the reconstruction process that the analysts could build on already existing maps. Even though we reduced the team from three analysts to one single analyst, the reconstruction of the new arguments was feasible. The feedback was once again very positive.

Even so, this was a mixed experience, because in two of three workshops the moderators didn’t want to get distracted or restricted by the maps and refused to use live projections. In these workshops the live reconstruction had no influence on the discussion (though it was used for documentation purposes). But maybe this didn’t make such a huge difference, because in all workshops the participants had read our arguments beforehand and we got the impression that some of them used the maps to formulate their statements.

Argument map of the session on “mitochondrial transfer” at the annual convention of the German ethics council. Circular boxes were added live during the event. Rectangular boxes were reconstructed beforehand.

Conclusion:

Live reconstructions can have real benefits if the boundary conditions are just right. But in real-world deployment it is difficult to find and establish these conditions. The most important ones are:

• Preparation: The live reconstruction can only augment an already existing map, so it has to be possible to prepare such a map beforehand.
• Preparation: Clients and moderators have to be included in the reconstruction process as early as possible.
• Moderation: The moderator has to be willing and able to use the map; realistically, this will only be the case if the moderator has been trained in argument reconstruction and analysis.
• Topic: The questions to-be-discussed must be concrete and controversial.

In many cases moderators, clients and participants have conflicting expectations and aims that make it impossible to create these conditions. Under such circumstances further revisions to the process are needed to make argument maps useful for debate moderation.

The post Going live: Using argument maps for debate moderation appeared first on Argunet.

Relaunch

We decided to simplify things: one page for the editor, one for our upcoming browser widget and one for our new blog. This will make it easier for you to find what you are looking for. And it will make it easier for us to maintain the site. Did I say “new blog”?

Yes, a brand-new blog!

While we were busy deploying Argunet in exciting new projects and trying out unreleased cool features, this site lay dormant for years. With this new blog we want to change that. Next week we will begin to post regularly about everything related to Argunet, argument maps and argumentation theory in general. So watch out for new posts!

Fine, but where are my argument maps?

Now to the bad news: We will no longer support publishing argument maps on our site. First of all, this was never a feature that was really used that much by our users. And secondly it made it hart to update and change this site according to our needs (one of the reasons we didn’t do it for years).

Don’t be mad at us. We didn’t delete your debates on the Argunet server. You can edit, download or export them with Argunet Editor. And we still want to help you publishing your own argument maps on the web. We only think there are much better ways to do this…

Announcing Argunet Browser

Wouldn’t it be nice if it were as easy to embed your argument maps into your own webpage as it is with a youtube video? We thought so as well. In the last months we worked hard on a first version of an Argunet Browser widget that you can use wherever you want. It will only take three steps: 1) Export your argument map from Argunet Editor into an xml file, 2) upload the file to your webspace and 3) embed Argunet Browser in your page. That’s it.

So, where is it? It’s practically ready to be released. Just wait for a week or two… (or take a peak at a first screenshot.)

Release of Argunet Editor 2.0

And there are even more good news: Argunet Editor has gotten a facelift as well! And it looks not only better than ever, it comes with some handy new features as well! Download Argunet 2.0 now.

Features

• Argunet files: Local debates are now managed via local argunet files (.arg). You can now backup, copy and share debates as easily as other files (you can even share them via Dropbox).
• Compatibility: Old debates will be imported the first time you start Argunet 2.0. Please note that the server has been updated and is now incompatible with older versions of Argunet. If you want to work online, please update your client!
• Restore: If Argunet should crash during your work, it will restore your debates on restart.
• Automatic Layout: Argunet has now a build in layouter (ColumnBasedLayouter) which automatically layouts argument maps. For even better layout results we recommend that you also install the new YFiles Layouter plugin. Because Argunet is open-source and the layout plugin is based on proprietary code, Argunet cannot come shipped with it. But if you don’t want to miss out on Argunet’s coolest new feature, you should really check it out.
• Plugins: It is possible to install Argunet-Plugins. Currently the followings plugins are available:
  • YFiles Hierarchical Graphlayouter: An advanced layouter to automatically layout an argument-map.
  • Argunet Graphexporter: This plugin enables you to export an argument map into different file-formats (such as pdf, jpg, svg and graphml). Using the graphml-format argument-maps can now be edited in other graph-editings tools, such as yEd Graph Editor or embeded into webpages via the Argunet-Browser.

Fixes

• Copying of colors and groups between debates.
• Key-binding bugs.

Known Issues

• If you use the new layout algorithms they will insert bended arrows into your map. Currently, it is not possible to edit bendpoints or copy and paste them between argument-maps in a debate or between different debates. Instead, just klick again on “layout” after changing your map.

That’s it for now. Please let us know what you think of our rebirth.

The post Relaunch & Release: Argunet 2.0 appeared first on Argunet.

The reconstruction and visualisation with argument maps can be useful in many ways:

• Argument maps can give you a fast overview over the state of a debate
• Argument maps help you to remember complex argumentation structures
• The logical reconstruction allows a detailed analysis and evaluation of arguments and dialectic strategies
• Argument maps help to keep focused on relevant parts of the debate by filtering out irrelevant or redundant information
• Argument maps help concentrate on a rational, fair debate
• Argument maps can guide and structure live discussions. Misunderstandings, repitition and unfair persuasion techniques can be avoided.
• Argument mapping can be used for presentations or whole seminars

How do I read an argument map?

Argument Maps contain two elements: Sentences and Arguments.

Sentences

Sentences are visualised as small framed white boxes.

Arguments

Arguments are visualised as small colored boxes

Reconstructed Arguments

If an argument has been logically reconstructed, the argument is visualised as a small framed colored box. You can open the logical reconstruction by clicking on it.

Logically an argument consists of nothing else but sentences. But these sentences play different roles in an argument. Every argument has one inferred sentence (the conclusion) and at least one sentence from which the conclusion is inferred (a premiss). This premiss-conclusion structure is visualised as a sentence list: First all premisses of the argument are listed. Each horizontal line symbolizes an inference. Under the line the conclusion is listed (sometimes there are preliminary conclusions). Under the last line stands the main conclusion of the argument.

Support relations

If an argument supports a sentence of another argument, a green arrow is drawn from the former to the latter.

If the arrow is drawn-through, the support relation has been logically reconstructed. Logically, an argument supports another argument, if the conclusion of the supporting argument is equivalent to a premiss of the supported argument (”Socrates is mortal”, “Socrates will die”).

If you click on the arrow, you can see which sentences are defined as equivalent.

If the arrow is dashed, the support relation is only sketched and not logically reconstructed.

Attack relations

If an argument attacks a sentence of another argument, a red arrow is drawn from the former to the latter.

If the arrow is drawn-through, the attack relation has been logically reconstructed. Logically, an argument attacks another argument, if the conclusion of the supporting argument is contrary to a premiss of the supported argument (”Socrates is mortal”, “Socrates will never die”).

If you click on the arrow, you can see which sentences are defined as contrary.

If the arrow is dashed, the support relation is only sketched and not logically reconstructed.

Reading tips

• Start from the center of the debate. Look for the central thesis (sometimes there are more than one). Open and read all reconstructed arguments that support or attack the central thesis. Proceed by going from the center to the periphery.
• An attack does not necessarily mean, that the attacked argument is a bad argument. A support does not necessarily mean the argument is good. It all depends on your evaluation: How plausible do you find the premisses of the attacking/supporting argument? Where are the weak points of the argumentation?
• Are the reconstructed arguments really valid? Does the conclusion follow from the premisses? If the argument is valid and the premisses are true, the conclusion has to be true, too. Is there a counter-example?
• Naturally, no argument map can contain every argument. The authors have always made a selection. Are there important arguments missing?

Please read the introduction of the Argunet Editor Help for further information.

Do argument maps tell me, what I should believe?

No, they don’t. Argument maps are just a tool you can use for making up your mind. The better an argument map is, the more unbiased and neutral it is.

Every argument presupposes premisses. How good the arguments in the argument map are depends on how plausible their premisses are. The attack and support relations of the argument map do not determine the plausibility of the premisses, they only limit the possibilities by relating the plausibilities of different sentences to one another.

So, it is really up to you. Argument maps can show you, which questions you have to answer to make up your mind. They can not answer these questions for you.

Just download Argunet Editor for free. Start Argunet and click on “Create a new debate”. You can create local debates on your computer or start an online debate to collaborate with others.

 How can I create an argument map?

Follow the instructions in our first Tutorial (All tutorials come with your Argunet installation, so you do not have to read them online). It won’t take long and will teach you the Argunet basics.

Is there any difference to mind-mapping?

Yes, there are many differences. Argument maps may remind you of mind maps, because they look similar. But that’s about it. Mind maps have a different methodology, serve different purposes and are used by different people. Here are just some important differences:

• Mind maps are used for brainstorming, i.e. the collection of subjective associations, opinions, ideas of all sorts. Argument maps are used for the logical reconstruction and analysis of controverse debates. In most cases these debates will take place between different people with different perspective and not in your mind alone.
• In mind maps the visualisation means to you, what you want it to mean. That may be great for you, but it is not so great if you want to share the products of your mind with others. In every Argunet argument map the meaning of all elements always stays the same and is well defined by logic or argumentation theory. This precision is not only necessary if you want to assess complex arguments and argumentations. It gives you also the opportunity to share your insights with others in a common visual language.
• There are no real rules in mind-mapping. You can do what you want. Nobody can say what is right and what is wrong. In contrast, giving and taking reasons is a rule guided practice. There are rules about good and bad reasoning. Argument maps can not guarantee good reasoning. But they can restrict the users options in a way that makes it more probable. This rule-guided reconstruction makes it possible to collaborate on argument maps even if the participants have opposing views in the reconstructed debate.

The post So, what exactly is an argument map? appeared first on Argunet.

The post Argunet Server up again appeared first on Argunet.

Until then, you can use all features of Argunet locally and offline. If the server is running again, you will be able to upload your argument maps to an online debate. Sorry for the inconvenience.

The post Argunet server temporarily down appeared first on Argunet.

With this release the Argunet development has not come to an end. We already have many ideas for new features, a new task list and even some money for development. Parallel to this, we work on our new homepage, so expect to see something new here very soon…

With Argunet 1.0.0, four extensive tutorials are included in the program’s help, which teach you everything you need to know about argument mapping with Argunet. You will reconstruct a small debate about software patents. You can take a look at the final state of this example debate at the Argunet Server of the FU Berlin. Just login and open the debate “Software Patents” with the reader password “reader”. The last tutorial will show you how to do this. You can copy the arguments from this debate into your own debate to modify or extend them.

We hope that this will help new users to get started. We are planning to create screencasts and upload more example debates to make Argunet even more accessible. If you need more help, please post your question on the Argunet mailing list!

Release Notes:

Fixed:

• All known bugs

New Features:

• Argunet Help: Argument Mapping with Argunet. Four Tutorials in English and German
• E-mail notification: Debate editors are now notified by mail, if someone is applying for a role and users are notified if their debate role has been changed by an debate editor.
• Personal information: You can now change your personal information for your Argunet Server user account and retrieve passwords
• A lot of smaller usability improvements (Warning dialogues, tool tips, …)

Known Issues:

• So far sketched attack and support arrows cannot be copied between debates. This is not bug, it just has not been implemented yet, but has top priority on our task list.
• Some of the old debates on the Argunet Server are not working anymore, because of changes in the new version. If this is the case with one of your online debates, please contact us by mail. Most probably, we can help you!

The post Out of Beta: Argunet 1.0.0 released! appeared first on Argunet.

The post Argunet wins FU e-Learning Award appeared first on Argunet.

The post Argunet employed in Organic Computing Project appeared first on Argunet.

The server has also been updated and is now incompatible with older versions of Argunet. If you want to work online, please update your client!

Features:

• Argument editor undo/redo: As long as you edit your argument, you can always undo and redo your last changes. This feature is restricted to the argument editor, because of the optionally distributed structure of Argunet. You cannot undo changes, that possibly are already used by other users, to avoid confusion and errors.
• Recently used debates: Open your recently used debates directly from the “File” menu.
• New alignment tools
• Delete debates
• Interface optimization: We have optimized Argunet’s usability in many respects.

Fixes:

• Nearly all serious known bugs (for exceptions see below).

Known Issues

• On OSX it is currently not possible to create new debates locally. We have already identified the cause and will fix this in the next days.
• In some cases, it is not possible to save edited arguments. This is our last serious bug and we will try to chase it down in the next days.

The post Argunet Release 0.9.0 Beta appeared first on Argunet.