An argument is the smallest meaningful component within an argument map. It is an assertion that has been made (e.g., by a person or an organization). Some arguments are written by Controvis users to summarise an interesting assertion or group of assertions. Others are direct-quotes from a source. Quotes contain sources, with links (where possible) to source webpages and metadata pages containing additional contextual information about authors.

Argument Organisation

Arguments are organised in three levels:

• The second/middle argument is the main one we are focussing on and relating to other arguments.
• The topmost argument(s) are the arguments that the main argument supports or attacks.
• The bottom arguments are those that are related to the main argument by supporting, attacking, or being cited by the main argument.

Select an argument (e.g., the top one or one of the bottom ones) to make it the main one. This will then show us which other arguments the newly-focussed one is related to.

Connections between arguments show their logical relationship. There are three main types of relationships in Controvis argument maps:

1. Support Relationships

In a support relationship, one argument provides evidence or reasoning that strengthens another argument. For example, abortion rights are supported by the argument that fetuses do not meet the requirements for personhood. In turn, the argument that fetuses are not people is supported by the argument that personhood requires consciousness and the fetuses lack this attribute.

2. Attack Relationships

Attack relationships indicate that one argument provides evidence or reasoning that weakens another argument. There are three important types of attacks:

Rebutting

A direct attack on another argument. In this example, the argument for abortion rights is attacked by the argument from the Christian perspective, that life begins at conception. However, the argument that the right to life means abortion is impermissible, is in turn attacked by the bodily autonomy argument - that the fetus does not have the right to use the body of the person carrying it for the purpose of staying alive.

Undermining

An attack on an argument that supports or attacks another argument. The argument for abortion rights is supported by the argument that a fetus is not a person and therefore has no right to life. However, a counter-argument against 'non-people have no right to life' one is that it implies that other humans that arguably lack personhood (e.g., infants) would lack the right to life. This counter-argument undermines the main argument of abortion rights by attacking one of its supporting premises (that fetuses have no right to life because they're not people).

Key insight: As arguments are added or removed, other arguments can become acceptable or unacceptable—this dynamic nature is what makes argument maps more powerful than simpler representations.

Undercutting (not supported yet)

For completeness, a third type of attack exists called an undercut, which is not currently represented in Controvis. An undercut attacks the relationship between two arguments rather than an argument itself. It suggests that while argument A might be correct, it doesn't actually attack or support argument B in the way claimed.

3. Citation Relationships

Citations indicate that one argument depends on another by referencing it as evidence. Unlike support or attack relationships, if a cited argument is attacked, it doesn't necessarily affect the argument citing it.

Citation relationships are particularly useful for mapping arguments about people's values, ideologies, or positions while allowing those underlying arguments to be explored separately as part of the broader map.

Controvis documents arguments and their relationships to analyze them, not to endorse them. Because some arguments may be potentially harmful at an individual or societal level, we permit them only when:

• Including them reduces rather than increases potential harm
• They provide valuable context for understanding the broader debate
• Counter-arguments are included that challenge harmful positions

For example, we may include claims that dehumanize certain groups if doing so helps expose problematic ideologies and values, while always providing counter-arguments that explain why such claims are harmful and incorrect.

We focus on creating and maintaining argument maps that are:

• Complex - Covering topics with multiple valid perspectives where a full and deep structure of relationships adds clarity
• Interesting - Exploring topics worth understanding in depth
• Valuable - Comprising high-quality arguments with meaningful relationships between them