Dear Dialogue Mapping/Compendium community,

Yesterday we launched www.GlobalArgument.net -- a global experiment in computer-supported argumentation.

If mapping complex arguments in Compendium is something that appeals to you, not so much in real time in meetings, but as a reflective, analytical process, then you may be interested in this. Our initial focus is the Iraq Debate. See below for the announcement and details of Experiment 1, and register as a Player if you want to engage.

Please fwd to relevant people.

Many thanks

Simon

___________________________________________________________________________________

www.GlobalArgument.net

"GlobalArgument.net is an experiment to evaluate different Computer-Supported Argumentation: both the technologies, and the 'craft skill' of using them effectively.

Our two-fold objectives are to:

• showcase how complex debates of topical interest can be more effectively communicated, navigated and analysed when mapped in software tools
• advance the state of the art in practical argumentation support tools

Players participate in argumentation experiments, working to an agreed schedule and from common sources. Through systematic comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of approaches, we aim to clarify how approaches can be usefully compared and improved.

We hope that you find this an intriguing idea, and invite you to join in the next experiment."

And below is the announcement I posted today on Argumentation Experiment 1...

____________________________________________________________________________

www.globalargument.net/experiments/1

Experiment 1 (Mar-May 2005): Iraq Debate

Introduction to the debate

The decision by the United States and a number of allies (including the UK and Australia) to militarily remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in March-April 2003 provoked one of the most heated and complex public policy debates in recent times. The debate continues to the present day as more information bearing on the war’s original justification becomes available and the focus shifts to the appropriate policy for post-war Iraq. Innumerable arguments and considerations have been invoked in the different arenas where the debate has been conducted (parliamentary/congressional debates, various branches of academia, the media, the vernacular public debate) bearing on the legality, morality and prudence of the war.

The positions taken by participants almost invariable depend (either implicitly or explicitly) on some larger framework of analysis that determines the weight or relevance accorded to different considerations. This may be a comprehensive theory about the justification for war (such as traditional Just War Theory), or a distinctive ethical theory (such as Consequentialism), or a perspective shaped within a particular academic discipline (e.g. the Realist/Constructivist/Liberalist debate amongst international relations scholars) – or just a collection of prejudices.

Ideally, we would like to develop an integrated overview of substantial parts of the debate, making reference to a representative selection of sources (textual and other media) in which the arguments are expressed.

Source Documents
http://www.globalargument.net/experiments/1/source.html

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Dr Simon J. Buckingham Shum
Senior Lecturer, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1908 655723
Fax: +44 (0)1908 653169 [office]
eFax: +44 (0)870 122 8765 [direct]
Email: sbs@...
Web: www.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"      W. Edwards Deming
 Compendium: hypermedia sensemaking    www.CompendiumInstitute.org
 Visualizing Argumentation       www.VisualizingArgumentation.info