DebateGraph

DebateGraph is a web-based platform designed for collaborative visualization of complex debates and structured argumentation similar to miro and lucid chart. It allows users to build network-style maps of issues, positions, arguments and counterarguments, enabling all sides of a discussion to be presented, connected and analysed. 

Who it serves & how
This tool is especially useful for individuals, teams or organisations dealing with “wicked problems”—issues that are multi-dimensional, involve many stakeholders and include conflicting viewpoints. Sharing understanding in a structured and transparent form, allows people to see that their perspectives have been heard and represented in context, to fill any gaps, and to expand upon, improve, and challenge any of the points considered directly – and it does in a highly efficient way that avoids unnecessary repetition and ad hominem attacks, and is constantly open and evolving in the light of new evidence and ideas. Users can:

• Lay out the arguments, evidence and stakeholder positions for a topic in visual form, facilitating clarity and insight.
• Collaborate in building the map: contributions from many people can be added, linking ideas and responses across the network.
• Explore an existing map to understand an entire debate’s structure—what are the main issues, who supports which positions, what evidence is cited, etc.
  For example, a policy analyst might map key arguments for and against a climate-change mitigation strategy, showing links between causes, effects, stakeholder views and potential actions. The map helps visualise the overall structure and interconnections. 

Key features

• Interactive maps with nodes (issues/arguments) and edges (supports/opposes) that can be zoomed, filtered, and explored.
• Web-based collaboration, so multiple users can view and contribute in real-time or asynchronously.
• Ability to embed maps in external webpages or share them widely, supporting transparency and engagement.
• Accessible via browser with minimal installation, supporting widespread participation. 

Considerations

• Although it simplifies mapping of complex debates, users still need to invest time in defining clear nodes (issues/arguments) and linking them appropriately—poor‐structure reduces usefulness.
• The focus is on visualization and mapping, it’s less directly a tool for statistical analysis or quantitative modelling of argument-strength. For such tasks you may need supplementary tools.
• Because users may contribute many entries, maintaining coherence, avoiding duplication and ensuring quality of the map can become challenging without some governance or moderation.