www.fuerundwider.org


A moderated online-plattform for
   visualized argumentation

      ODET 2010, Leeds

            R...
The recipe


Argument visualization
+ Moderation / Embedding
+ Community Organizing
=
Moderation / Embedding

●   Developping a story-line for a debate
●   Embedding debate-maps within a blog-like
    website...
Example: „Information failure“
Example: Volcano Ashes (1)



             Argument maps are
             embedded into blogposts
Example: Volcano Ashes (2)

             ●   A debate is transformed
                 in an argument starting
            ...
Use of maps

●   The map is constructed in an adversarial style
●   We make use of „show more“ (details function)
●   With...
The website

      ●   Several blogposts
          lead through the topic
          and the main map.
      ●   Latest com...
Assumptions (1)

Business modell:
●   Starting point: Many people might like to use a public
    debate-website. But only ...
Assumptions (2)

    „Wickedness is not enough“: Some topics will
    be more apt for collective deliberation than
    oth...
Assumptions (3)

Argumentation- and dialogue tools are rather
complex. How can overcome the limits resulting
from this fac...
Software-requirements

●   Online-display
●   „Details“ function
●   Easy navigation and orientation
●   Allowing dialogue...
What‘s in it...for readers? (1)



Ever wanted to know how to prepare sepia in a
pressure cooker? Or to find out why your ...
What‘s in it … for readers? (2)

However, what if you want to get an impression
about the arguments, the pros and cons, us...
Whats in it … for readers? (3)

Instruments for the visualization of debates like
the ones we use on this site have the po...
What‘s in it...for contributors?

Stakeholders will be able to collect evidence and
arguments supporting their position – ...
What‘s in it...for sponsors?

The greater part of the debates will be sponsored
by scientific organisations and publishing...
What‘s in it... for sponsors? (2)


Sponsored debates can either be part of a site
with several ongoing discussions or be ...
End



Thanks four your attention!

         Ralf Groetker
  groetker@debattenprofis.de
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

An online-plattform for facilitated argument visualization

1,015

Published on

Presentation for ODET 2010, Leeds

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,015
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "An online-plattform for facilitated argument visualization"

  1. 1. www.fuerundwider.org A moderated online-plattform for visualized argumentation ODET 2010, Leeds Ralf Groetker groetker@debattenprofis.de
  2. 2. The recipe Argument visualization + Moderation / Embedding + Community Organizing =
  3. 3. Moderation / Embedding ● Developping a story-line for a debate ● Embedding debate-maps within a blog-like website. Participation via comments. ● Contrasting visualizations and narrative text ● Recruiting stakeholders and leading experts ● Commenting on the evolution of a debate ● Enhancing the debate with polls and other actions
  4. 4. Example: „Information failure“
  5. 5. Example: Volcano Ashes (1) Argument maps are embedded into blogposts
  6. 6. Example: Volcano Ashes (2) ● A debate is transformed in an argument starting with a contention ● Contributions to the debate appear as supporting (or attacking) statements for a claim
  7. 7. Use of maps ● The map is constructed in an adversarial style ● We make use of „show more“ (details function) ● Within the argument map, there are links to topic and dialog maps on sub-topics ● There are also maps with – protagonists of the debate – a timeline of events
  8. 8. The website ● Several blogposts lead through the topic and the main map. ● Latest comments are displayed ● Reference material on the topic of the debate is available via delicious
  9. 9. Assumptions (1) Business modell: ● Starting point: Many people might like to use a public debate-website. But only some are willing to contribute. ● We assume that motivating people to contribute will pose greater problems than dealing with spam ● The role of the moderator is very important. But moderation must be paid. ● We are sellling public debates, e.g. to science organizations
  10. 10. Assumptions (2) „Wickedness is not enough“: Some topics will be more apt for collective deliberation than others. Some important factors: ● The outcome of a debate must have some practical relevance ● Means/end-discussion will be easier than fundamtal dispute ● Local knowledge or special expertise is necessary ● Conflicts must seem resolvable
  11. 11. Assumptions (3) Argumentation- and dialogue tools are rather complex. How can overcome the limits resulting from this fact? ● It‘s never going to be as easy to use as Google. ● Embedding will help to lead readers through a map. ● We make commenting and contributing easier by adding a traditional comments-section
  12. 12. Software-requirements ● Online-display ● „Details“ function ● Easy navigation and orientation ● Allowing dialogue- as well als argument mapping ● Linkage options ● Possibility to render co-premisses ● Individual icons and images
  13. 13. What‘s in it...for readers? (1) Ever wanted to know how to prepare sepia in a pressure cooker? Or to find out why your newly- installed printer delivers pages full of lines like “?¤ €8?÷¿”? Google, of course, will lead you to some online community where exactly this is being discussed.
  14. 14. What‘s in it … for readers? (2) However, what if you want to get an impression about the arguments, the pros and cons, used in a contemporary debate, say, on the issue of prolonged military engagement in Iraq or a ban on speculation? A simple web search won’t help you much. There are, however, sites with discussions. But who wants to read twenty or more pages with comments, much of them addressing the same points over and over again?
  15. 15. Whats in it … for readers? (3) Instruments for the visualization of debates like the ones we use on this site have the potential to solve this problem. Debate-maps that reconstruct the logical structure of a discussion tell you at a glance which topics have been brought up in a discussion and how they relate to each other.
  16. 16. What‘s in it...for contributors? Stakeholders will be able to collect evidence and arguments supporting their position – and answering objections and questions brought up by opponents. The growing map itself is published under a creative common licence. Participants (and others) can re-publish the map on their own website.
  17. 17. What‘s in it...for sponsors? The greater part of the debates will be sponsored by scientific organisations and publishing companies. As a sponsor, you can propose a topic for discussion and establish yourself as a source of expertise in the field. The controversial and open style of the site will be a much more trustworthy way of communicating ‚risky‘ topics to the public than established formats of seeking public understanding of science.
  18. 18. What‘s in it... for sponsors? (2) Sponsored debates can either be part of a site with several ongoing discussions or be accessible through a separate website devoted to a single topic. Contact us for more details.
  19. 19. End Thanks four your attention! Ralf Groetker groetker@debattenprofis.de
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×