Wikidebates - User contributions [en]

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T11:09:15Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Some of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Some debating platforms and sites such as [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate] and [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea], similarly to Wikidebates' format, present arguments in a "linear" manner, grouping these in two separate categories : one for "pro/FOR" arguments, and a second for "con/AGAINST" arguments.

<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped by “family”, or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded upon in a dedicated page, or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources, in order to access extra information.

Different interfaces each have both their strengths and shortcomings, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of their presented debates. Some of these differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments from the forum are added to the debate
* Open-licence content
* Offers texts in respect to the ''Methodical Debate''
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description of them, can help to better understand the arguments, and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopaedias, and only one offers short biographies of referred proponents.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words, allowing to grasp an immediate idea even after a quick overview. Some sites do not offer this possibility.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T11:07:26Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Some of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Some debating platforms and sites such as [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate] and [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea], similarly to Wikidebates' format, present arguments in a "linear" manner, grouping these in two separate categories : one for "pro/FOR" arguments, and a second for "con/AGAINST" arguments.

<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped by “family”, or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded upon in a dedicated page, or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources, in order to access extra information.

Different interfaces each have both their strengths and shortcomings, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of their presented debates. Some of these differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description of them, can help to better understand the arguments, and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopaedias, and only one offers short biographies of referred proponents.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words, allowing to grasp an immediate idea even after a quick overview. Some sites do not offer this possibility.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T11:05:41Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Some of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Some debating platforms and sites such as [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate] and [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea], similarly to Wikidebates' format, present arguments in a "linear" manner, grouping these in two separate categories : one for "pro/FOR" arguments, and a second for "con/AGAINST" arguments.

<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped by “family”, or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded upon in a dedicated page, or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources, in order to access extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description of them, can help to better understand the arguments, and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopaedias, and only one offers short biographies of referred proponents.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words, allowing to grasp an immediate idea even after a quick overview. Some sites do not offer this possibility.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T11:05:21Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Some debating platforms and sites such as [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate] and [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea], similarly to Wikidebates' format, present arguments in a "linear" manner, grouping these in two separate categories : one for "pro/FOR" arguments, and a second for "con/AGAINST" arguments.

<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped by “family”, or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded upon in a dedicated page, or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources, in order to access extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description of them, can help to better understand the arguments, and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopaedias, and only one offers short biographies of referred proponents.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words, allowing to grasp an immediate idea even after a quick overview. Some sites do not offer this possibility.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T11:03:17Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Other similar debating platforms and sites such as [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea], present arguments in a "linear" manner, grouping these in two separate categories : one for "pro/FOR" arguments, and a second for "con/AGAINST" arguments.

<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped by “family”, or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded upon in a dedicated page, or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources, in order to access extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description of them, can help to better understand the arguments, and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopaedias, and only one offers short biographies of referred proponents.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words, allowing to grasp an immediate idea even after a quick overview. Some sites do not offer this possibility.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T07:49:16Z

PMercateng: /* Arguments with no titles */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description of them, can help to better understand the arguments, and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopaedias, and only one offers short biographies of referred proponents.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words, allowing to grasp an immediate idea even after a quick overview. Some sites do not offer this possibility.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T07:47:24Z

PMercateng: /* Arguments with no advocates */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description of them, can help to better understand the arguments, and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopaedias, and only one offers short biographies of referred proponents.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T07:44:30Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T07:43:52Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional informational ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T07:43:07Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* No quotes or citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument is displayed wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface is austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T07:40:31Z

PMercateng: /* Copyrighted content and technology */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-22T07:39:45Z

PMercateng: /* Learn more about these websites */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Self-description
!Year of launch
!Current status
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|Active
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|Active
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|Available for reading only since January 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|Active
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|Available for reading only since November 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|Active
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|Active
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|No longer updated
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Closed in 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|Active
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|Active
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Not updated since 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-20T15:42:39Z

PMercateng: /* En savoir plus sur ces sites */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== Learn more about these websites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|"A debate platform powered by reason"
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|"Debatabase"
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-13T15:24:43Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Numerous informative ressources
* Numerous quotes and citations
* Identity cards for proponents within a debate
* Debates are grouped by topic
||
* Arguments lack in depth/detail
* No objections to arguments
* Quotes and citations list is unorganized
* Overloaded interface
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro" and "Con" sections for each argument
* Proponents of an argument
* Copyright-free content
||
* Argument-oriented more than debate-oriented encyclopaedia
* No entry guidelines for debates
* No quotes or citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-13T15:17:52Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments are not family-grouped
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No sources/references
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* Sense of "irrefutable" argument
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Logical tree
* Numerous sub-levels for arguments and objections
* Aesthetically pleasing interface
||
* Arguments lack detail/depth
* Arguments are without proponents
* No quotes or citations
* No introductory paragraph to a debate
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-13T15:10:06Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Wikiversity integrated
* Clarity of summarised arguments.
* Embedded box system
* Content is copyright-free.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* No complimentary informative ressources
* Same system for valid or refuted arguments
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "Pro"/"Con" argument tree-like interface.
* Aesthetically pleasing interface.
||
* Lack of detail in arguments
* Arguments without proponents
* No quotes or citations.
* Debate titles are not always very clear
* There are no sub-categories to debates.
* "All-in-one" site
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* In-depth arguments with examples
||
* Column-based interface is problematic
* No quotes or citations
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-13T14:55:47Z

PMercateng: /* Arguments that lack in depth or in detail */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Intégration à la Wikiversité
* Clarté des résumés d'arguments
* Système de boîtes encastrées
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Système d'arguments valides ou réfutés
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre « pour »/« contre »
* Jolie interface de l'arbre
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Manque de lisibilité du titre des débats
* Absence de sous-catégories de débats
* Site tout-en-un
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments approfondis avec exemples
||
* Affichage en colonnes problématique
* Pas de citations
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : one paragraph.|Debatepedia : one paragraph.
File:Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.|Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
File:Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : one paragraph.|Idebate : one paragraph.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : one paragraph. |Procon : one paragraph.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs. |Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions.">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia|Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=An identity summary on Procon|An identity summary on Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
File:Procon-glossary.png|alt=Procon's glossary|A glossary
File:Procon-actors-list.png|alt=A list of a debate's proponents on Procon|A list of a debate's proponents
File:Procon-historical-background.png|alt=Procon's history timeline|A historic timeline
File:Procon-did-you-know.png|alt="Did you know?" page on Procon|A "Did you know?" page
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-13T14:48:23Z

PMercateng: /* Single-level arguments */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Intégration à la Wikiversité
* Clarté des résumés d'arguments
* Système de boîtes encastrées
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Système d'arguments valides ou réfutés
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre « pour »/« contre »
* Jolie interface de l'arbre
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Manque de lisibilité du titre des débats
* Absence de sous-catégories de débats
* Site tout-en-un
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments approfondis avec exemples
||
* Affichage en colonnes problématique
* Pas de citations
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
File:Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
File:Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
File:Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
File:Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : un paragraphe|Debatepedia : un paragraphe
Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases|Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases
Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : un paragraphe|Idebate : un paragraphe
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : un paragraphe|Procon : un paragraphe
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes|Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions. ">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|Les acteurs pro et anti du débat sur Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=Une fiche d'identité sur Procon|Une fiche d'identité sur Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
Procon-glossary.png|alt=Le glossaire de Procon|Un glossaire
Procon-actors-list.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|La liste des acteurs du débat
Procon-historical-background.png|alt=La frise historique de Procon|Une frise historique
Procon-did-you-know.png|alt=Page "Le saviez-vous ?" sur Procon|Une page "Le saviez-vous ?"
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-04-13T14:45:30Z

PMercateng: /* Arguments that are not grouped */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Intégration à la Wikiversité
* Clarté des résumés d'arguments
* Système de boîtes encastrées
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Système d'arguments valides ou réfutés
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre « pour »/« contre »
* Jolie interface de l'arbre
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Manque de lisibilité du titre des débats
* Absence de sous-catégories de débats
* Site tout-en-un
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments approfondis avec exemples
||
* Affichage en colonnes problématique
* Pas de citations
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
File:Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
File:Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
File:Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
File:Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections
Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout
Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Deux exceptions : Riyarchy
Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : un paragraphe|Debatepedia : un paragraphe
Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases|Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases
Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : un paragraphe|Idebate : un paragraphe
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : un paragraphe|Procon : un paragraphe
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes|Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions. ">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|Les acteurs pro et anti du débat sur Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=Une fiche d'identité sur Procon|Une fiche d'identité sur Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
Procon-glossary.png|alt=Le glossaire de Procon|Un glossaire
Procon-actors-list.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|La liste des acteurs du débat
Procon-historical-background.png|alt=La frise historique de Procon|Une frise historique
Procon-did-you-know.png|alt=Page "Le saviez-vous ?" sur Procon|Une page "Le saviez-vous ?"
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Help:Creating a debate

2022-04-13T14:27:00Z

PMercateng: /* 4. Write an outline */

You wish to begin a debate? Here are the main steps to creating a page.

{{TOC
|level=1
}}

== 1. Find a topic ==
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Make sure that your debate isn’t already online
}}
Try searching with different keywords to make sure that the topic isn’t already referenced.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Choose a topic that really is subject to debate
}}
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=“Does God exist?” is a real topic of debate, as there are both people who defend the existence of God and his non-existence.
}}
{{Indentation
|title=Bad example
|content=“Does Zeus exist?” is no longer a topic of debate amongst the public, as nobody really defends the existence of Zeus today.
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}

== 2. Find a good title ==
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Formulate a yes-no question
}}
{{Indentation
|title=Examples
|content=* “Should stores be opened on a Sunday?”
* “Can one joke about everything?”
* “Are we free?”
}}
{{Indentation
|title=Bad examples
|content=
* “Why is the sky blue?”: the type of answer is “Because…”
* “What is a good government?”: the type of answer is “A good government is…”
* “Darwinism v. creationism”: this title isn’t question.
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Make your titles clear and short
}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! To avoid !! To prefer
|-
| Does the use of vaccines present health risks for humankind? || Should be be vaccinated?
|-
| Is the western world going through a global crisis, both morally, culturally and spiritually? || Is Western Europe in decline?
|-
| Is the theory of neurophysiological determinism valid? || Do we have free will?
|}
{{Collapsible section end}}

== 3. Try to find as many PRO and CON points of view ==
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Research diverse and opposing media
}}
To be as neutral and comprehensive as possible, go through a variety of sources: books, articles and sites holding a consensual point of view; but also sources which clearly embrace a point of view, be it a minority one. Get out of your comfort zone by reading opinions which aren’t your own.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Collect quotations
}}
To propose arguments that are truly being defended, as well as to give more consistency to arguments, quote textes (books, articles, studies, etc…). Write down the sources.

'''Important:''' Each quotation must be attributed to a single argument. Separate each part of a same text in support of a different argument.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Summarise each argument with a title
}}
To better organise the outline, summarise each argument or each quotation in a sentence.
{{Indentation
|title=Examples
|content=Titles DENYING the existence of God:
* “Nothing proves the existence of God”
* “Different religions contradict each other”
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
[[File:Tip.svg|15px|gauche]] To save your research (outline, quotations, notes, etc.), remember to use your draft pages.

== 4. Write an outline ==
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Classify your arguments as PRO and CON/FOR and AGAINST by listing them out before hand
}}You may want to list, on paper or elsewhere, the different PRO and CON, or FOR and AGAINST arguments of the debate.
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=For the following debate concerning « Should schools still use a grading system? » :
}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Arguments IN FAVOUR !! Arguments AGAINST
|-
|
* Grades are biased
* Grades can be stressful for students
* Grades aren’t fair
* Grades favour competition amongst students
* There are better systems for academic evaluation
||
* Grades allow the student to know where he stands compared to others
* Grades are a source of motivation for students
* Grades are a fair and objective system
* Grading is the lesser of bad systems
|}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=4
|title=How to classify the arguments which fall at the same time in the FOR and in the AGAINST category?
|type=information
}}Sometimes, the same idea might yield positive outcomes from one perspective, and negative ones from another.

{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=Within the debate "Should we establish a basic income?", the proposition that "A basic income allows one to work less" is both :
* a PRO argument : a basic income allows for more spare time for any other chosen activity one chooses;
*a CON argument: a basic income encourages idleness and less productivity.
}}
Thus, it is not quite one single argument, both PRO and CON, but two different, seperate ones: one to be classified as PRO/FOR, and another to be classified as CON/AGAINST.

{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Group close arguments into families
}}
Many arguments are variations of the same idea. To clarify the reading, try to group close arguments in the same family of arguments.
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=In the debate “Should we welcome more migrants? ", the arguments FOR "We practiced slavery ", "We colonised Africa”, and "Multinationals exploit the resources of African countries” can be united in the family “We must make reparation to African countries”.
}}

Families correspond to the main arguments of the debate. On the FOR side as on the COUNTER side, try to reach between 4 and 10 families.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Look for objections
}}
Each argument FOR or AGAINST can give rise to counter-arguments (or objections). Search in first the unavoidable objections to each argument.
{{Indentation
|title=Examples
|content=For the debate "Should freedom of expression be total? ":
}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Argument FOR
!Argument AGAINST
|-
|Freedom of expression must be total for power to report abuse of power

''Objections'':
* The criticism of the institutions is dangerous
* Freedom of expression is often the false nose of racism
|Freedom of expression must be limited to fight against hate speech

''Objections'':
* The notion of incitement to hatred is vague
* Wanting to eradicate hatred leads to censorship regime
* Hatred is sometimes necessary
|}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=4
|title=How to tell the difference between an objection and a AGAINST argument?
|type=information
}}
We take up the question of the debate and we try to answer: "No, because X", X being the proposition on which we have a doubt. If this sentence holds water, then X is an argument AGAINST. If the sentence seems odd or unsatisfactory, it may be an objection to a FOR argument, that it is search.
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=In the debate “Should we establish a basic income? ", The idea" Basic income only fights against extreme poverty ”is an argument AGAINST?

''Test'': Should we establish a basic income? No, because basic income only fights the extreme poverty.

This sentence is preposterous: it would not occur to someone to object to basic income for this reason (basic income is already a given if it fights extreme poverty).

On the other hand, is there a FOR argument of the debate to which this objection would apply? Yes, the basic income fights only against extreme poverty "is an appropriate response to the argument" The basic income helps fight poverty”. It is therefore an objection to a FOR argument.
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Build on existing debates
}}
Check out debates at different stages of advancement.
{{Indentation
|title=Examples
|content=* A draft debate with the main FOR and AGAINST ideas: Should the notes be deleted at school?
* A detailed plan giving an overall vision of the debate: Are we in a democracy?
* A successful debate after many hours of work: Should we establish a basic income?
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}

== 5. Create the debate page ==
Do you have a debate title and a plan? Enter your title below and click on "Create debate":

{{Your comments section}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Help: Creating a wikidebate
|description=You wish to begin a debate on Wikidebates? Here are the main steps to creating a wikidebate.
}}

Help:Creating a debate

2022-04-13T14:14:54Z

PMercateng: /* 4. Write an outline */

You wish to begin a debate? Here are the main steps to creating a page.

{{TOC
|level=1
}}

== 1. Find a topic ==
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Make sure that your debate isn’t already online
}}
Try searching with different keywords to make sure that the topic isn’t already referenced.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Choose a topic that really is subject to debate
}}
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=“Does God exist?” is a real topic of debate, as there are both people who defend the existence of God and his non-existence.
}}
{{Indentation
|title=Bad example
|content=“Does Zeus exist?” is no longer a topic of debate amongst the public, as nobody really defends the existence of Zeus today.
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}

== 2. Find a good title ==
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Formulate a yes-no question
}}
{{Indentation
|title=Examples
|content=* “Should stores be opened on a Sunday?”
* “Can one joke about everything?”
* “Are we free?”
}}
{{Indentation
|title=Bad examples
|content=
* “Why is the sky blue?”: the type of answer is “Because…”
* “What is a good government?”: the type of answer is “A good government is…”
* “Darwinism v. creationism”: this title isn’t question.
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Make your titles clear and short
}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! To avoid !! To prefer
|-
| Does the use of vaccines present health risks for humankind? || Should be be vaccinated?
|-
| Is the western world going through a global crisis, both morally, culturally and spiritually? || Is Western Europe in decline?
|-
| Is the theory of neurophysiological determinism valid? || Do we have free will?
|}
{{Collapsible section end}}

== 3. Try to find as many PRO and CON points of view ==
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Research diverse and opposing media
}}
To be as neutral and comprehensive as possible, go through a variety of sources: books, articles and sites holding a consensual point of view; but also sources which clearly embrace a point of view, be it a minority one. Get out of your comfort zone by reading opinions which aren’t your own.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Collect quotations
}}
To propose arguments that are truly being defended, as well as to give more consistency to arguments, quote textes (books, articles, studies, etc…). Write down the sources.

'''Important:''' Each quotation must be attributed to a single argument. Separate each part of a same text in support of a different argument.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Summarise each argument with a title
}}
To better organise the outline, summarise each argument or each quotation in a sentence.
{{Indentation
|title=Examples
|content=Titles DENYING the existence of God:
* “Nothing proves the existence of God”
* “Different religions contradict each other”
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
[[File:Tip.svg|15px|gauche]] To save your research (outline, quotations, notes, etc.), remember to use your draft pages.

== 4. Write an outline ==
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Classify your arguments as PRO and CON/FOR and AGAINST by listing them out before hand
}}
Listez sur une feuille de papier ou un document numérique les différents arguments POUR et CONTRE du débat.
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=For the following debate concerning « Should schools still use a grading system? » :
}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Arguments IN FAVOUR !! Arguments AGAINST
|-
|
* Grades are biased
* Grades can be stressful for students
* Grades aren’t fair
* Grades favour competition amongst students
* There are better systems for academic evaluation
||
* Grades allow the student to know where he stands compared to others
* Grades are a source of motivation for students
* Grades are a fair and objective system
* Grading is the lesser of bad systems
|}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=4
|title=How to classify the arguments which fall at the same time in the FOR and in the AGAINST category?
|type=information
}}
Il arrive qu'une même idée puisse avoir des effets positifs d'un certain point de vue et des effets indésirables d'un autre point de vue.
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=Dans le débat « Faut-il instaurer un revenu de base ? », l'idée « Le revenu de base permet de moins travailler » correspond à :
* un argument POUR : le revenu de base offre plus de temps libre pour s'adonner à des activités de son choix ;
* et à un argument CONTRE : le revenu de base favorise l'assistanat et l'improductivité.
}}
Ainsi, il ne s'agit pas d'un seul argument, à la fois POUR et CONTRE, mais bien de deux arguments différents : un argument à classer dans le POUR et un argument à classer dans le CONTRE.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Group close arguments into families
}}
Many arguments are variations of the same idea. To clarify the reading, try to group close arguments in the same family of arguments.
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=In the debate “Should we welcome more migrants? ", the arguments FOR "We practiced slavery ", "We colonised Africa”, and "Multinationals exploit the resources of African countries” can be united in the family “We must make reparation to African countries”.
}}

Families correspond to the main arguments of the debate. On the FOR side as on the COUNTER side, try to reach between 4 and 10 families.
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Look for objections
}}
Each argument FOR or AGAINST can give rise to counter-arguments (or objections). Search in first the unavoidable objections to each argument.
{{Indentation
|title=Examples
|content=For the debate "Should freedom of expression be total? ":
}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Argument FOR
!Argument AGAINST
|-
|Freedom of expression must be total for power to report abuse of power

''Objections'':
* The criticism of the institutions is dangerous
* Freedom of expression is often the false nose of racism
|Freedom of expression must be limited to fight against hate speech

''Objections'':
* The notion of incitement to hatred is vague
* Wanting to eradicate hatred leads to censorship regime
* Hatred is sometimes necessary
|}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=4
|title=How to tell the difference between an objection and a AGAINST argument?
|type=information
}}
We take up the question of the debate and we try to answer: "No, because X", X being the proposition on which we have a doubt. If this sentence holds water, then X is an argument AGAINST. If the sentence seems odd or unsatisfactory, it may be an objection to a FOR argument, that it is search.
{{Indentation
|title=Example
|content=In the debate “Should we establish a basic income? ", The idea" Basic income only fights against extreme poverty ”is an argument AGAINST?

''Test'': Should we establish a basic income? No, because basic income only fights the extreme poverty.

This sentence is preposterous: it would not occur to someone to object to basic income for this reason (basic income is already a given if it fights extreme poverty).

On the other hand, is there a FOR argument of the debate to which this objection would apply? Yes, the basic income fights only against extreme poverty "is an appropriate response to the argument" The basic income helps fight poverty”. It is therefore an objection to a FOR argument.
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section end}}
{{Collapsible section begin
|level=3
|title=Build on existing debates
}}
Check out debates at different stages of advancement.
{{Indentation
|title=Examples
|content=* A draft debate with the main FOR and AGAINST ideas: Should the notes be deleted at school?
* A detailed plan giving an overall vision of the debate: Are we in a democracy?
* A successful debate after many hours of work: Should we establish a basic income?
}}
{{Collapsible section end}}

== 5. Create the debate page ==
Do you have a debate title and a plan? Enter your title below and click on "Create debate":

{{Your comments section}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Help: Creating a wikidebate
|description=You wish to begin a debate on Wikidebates? Here are the main steps to creating a wikidebate.
}}

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-03-17T16:55:48Z

PMercateng:

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* "For"/"Against" argument table
* Argument and debate pages are separate
* In-case argument quotes and citations
* Numerous debate categories
* Wikipedia-type interface
* Copyright-free content
||
* Arguments are too short
* Arguments cannot be countered or objected to
* Often more quotes than summarised arguments
* Uninviting interface
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Box-based presentation || style="text-align:left;" |
* Intégration à la Wikiversité
* Clarté des résumés d'arguments
* Système de boîtes encastrées
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Système d'arguments valides ou réfutés
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre « pour »/« contre »
* Jolie interface de l'arbre
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Manque de lisibilité du titre des débats
* Absence de sous-catégories de débats
* Site tout-en-un
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments approfondis avec exemples
||
* Affichage en colonnes problématique
* Pas de citations
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arborescent chart || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Lists || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres
Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections
Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout
Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Deux exceptions : Riyarchy
Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : un paragraphe|Debatepedia : un paragraphe
Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases|Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases
Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : un paragraphe|Idebate : un paragraphe
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : un paragraphe|Procon : un paragraphe
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes|Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions. ">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|Les acteurs pro et anti du débat sur Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=Une fiche d'identité sur Procon|Une fiche d'identité sur Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
Procon-glossary.png|alt=Le glossaire de Procon|Un glossaire
Procon-actors-list.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|La liste des acteurs du débat
Procon-historical-background.png|alt=La frise historique de Procon|Une frise historique
Procon-did-you-know.png|alt=Page "Le saviez-vous ?" sur Procon|Une page "Le saviez-vous ?"
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-03-17T16:47:05Z

PMercateng:

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card, tree or cans || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Différence entre pages d’arguments et pages de débats
* Citations dans des pages d’arguments spécifiques
* Nombreuses catégories de débats
* Interface Wikipédia
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations plus que résumés d’arguments
* Interface austère
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Boîtes encastrées || style="text-align:left;" |
* Intégration à la Wikiversité
* Clarté des résumés d'arguments
* Système de boîtes encastrées
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Système d'arguments valides ou réfutés
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre « pour »/« contre »
* Jolie interface de l'arbre
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Manque de lisibilité du titre des débats
* Absence de sous-catégories de débats
* Site tout-en-un
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments approfondis avec exemples
||
* Affichage en colonnes problématique
* Pas de citations
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arbre || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arbre || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Liste || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres
Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections
Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout
Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Deux exceptions : Riyarchy
Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : un paragraphe|Debatepedia : un paragraphe
Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases|Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases
Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : un paragraphe|Idebate : un paragraphe
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : un paragraphe|Procon : un paragraphe
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes|Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions. ">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|Les acteurs pro et anti du débat sur Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=Une fiche d'identité sur Procon|Une fiche d'identité sur Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
Procon-glossary.png|alt=Le glossaire de Procon|Un glossaire
Procon-actors-list.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|La liste des acteurs du débat
Procon-historical-background.png|alt=La frise historique de Procon|Une frise historique
Procon-did-you-know.png|alt=Page "Le saviez-vous ?" sur Procon|Une page "Le saviez-vous ?"
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Overall Review==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Family-grouped arguments !! Titled arguments !! Objections to arguments !! Sub-levels to arguments !! Detailed arguments !! Quotes and citations !! Ability to defend an argument !! Interlinking between different arguments !! Additional information and resources
!Copyright-free content
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-03-17T16:40:11Z

PMercateng: /* Arguments without quotations */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of presented debates. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card, tree or cans || style="text-align:left;" |
* Card-shaped presentation
* The display mode is entirely customisable
* Many “for”/“against” sub-argument levels
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments are not detailed
* Content is not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Visually appealing interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Video responses by experts
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level is very academic
* Complex descriptive arguments
* Debates are in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates are not interlinked
* Ebooks are for sale, ie not free
* Content is not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Différence entre pages d’arguments et pages de débats
* Citations dans des pages d’arguments spécifiques
* Nombreuses catégories de débats
* Interface Wikipédia
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations plus que résumés d’arguments
* Interface austère
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Boîtes encastrées || style="text-align:left;" |
* Intégration à la Wikiversité
* Clarté des résumés d'arguments
* Système de boîtes encastrées
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Système d'arguments valides ou réfutés
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre « pour »/« contre »
* Jolie interface de l'arbre
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Manque de lisibilité du titre des débats
* Absence de sous-catégories de débats
* Site tout-en-un
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments approfondis avec exemples
||
* Affichage en colonnes problématique
* Pas de citations
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arbre || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arbre || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Liste || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres
Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections
Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout
Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Deux exceptions : Riyarchy
Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : un paragraphe|Debatepedia : un paragraphe
Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases|Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases
Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : un paragraphe|Idebate : un paragraphe
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : un paragraphe|Procon : un paragraphe
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes|Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="An example of an exception.">
File:Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Some exceptions. ">
File:Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|Les acteurs pro et anti du débat sur Debatepedia
File:Procon-ID.png|alt=Une fiche d'identité sur Procon|Une fiche d'identité sur Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="One notable exception">
File:Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
Procon-glossary.png|alt=Le glossaire de Procon|Un glossaire
Procon-actors-list.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|La liste des acteurs du débat
Procon-historical-background.png|alt=La frise historique de Procon|Une frise historique
Procon-did-you-know.png|alt=Page "Le saviez-vous ?" sur Procon|Une page "Le saviez-vous ?"
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Tableau récapitulatif==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Arguments rassemblés par familles !! Titre aux arguments !! Objections aux arguments !! Sous-niveaux d’arguments !! Arguments détaillés !! Citations !! Défenseurs de l’argument !! Liens entre débats !! Ressources informatives
!Contenu libre de droits
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-03-17T16:28:53Z

PMercateng:

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Different interfaces have both strengths and weaknesses, which impact the variety and resourcefulness for each presented debate. These differences are detailed in the chart below.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card, tree or cans || style="text-align:left;" |
* Presentation under very card shape visual
* Display mode entirely customizable
* Many sub-argument levels “for”/“against”
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments no detailed
* Content not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Beautiful interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Response videos expert
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level academic
* Complexity of descriptive arguments
* Debates in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates without links between them
* Ebooks pay
* Content not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Différence entre pages d’arguments et pages de débats
* Citations dans des pages d’arguments spécifiques
* Nombreuses catégories de débats
* Interface Wikipédia
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations plus que résumés d’arguments
* Interface austère
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Boîtes encastrées || style="text-align:left;" |
* Intégration à la Wikiversité
* Clarté des résumés d'arguments
* Système de boîtes encastrées
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Système d'arguments valides ou réfutés
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre « pour »/« contre »
* Jolie interface de l'arbre
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Manque de lisibilité du titre des débats
* Absence de sous-catégories de débats
* Site tout-en-un
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments approfondis avec exemples
||
* Affichage en colonnes problématique
* Pas de citations
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arbre || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arbre || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Liste || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
À l'aune de ce tableau, les encyclopédies existantes souffrent de différents manques, que l'on pourrait distinguer comme suit.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres
Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections
Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout
Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Deux exceptions : Riyarchy
Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : un paragraphe|Debatepedia : un paragraphe
Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases|Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases
Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : un paragraphe|Idebate : un paragraphe
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : un paragraphe|Procon : un paragraphe
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes|Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="Un exemple d'exception">
Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Quelques exceptions">
Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|Les acteurs pro et anti du débat sur Debatepedia
Procon-ID.png|alt=Une fiche d'identité sur Procon|Une fiche d'identité sur Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="Une exception notable">
Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
Procon-glossary.png|alt=Le glossaire de Procon|Un glossaire
Procon-actors-list.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|La liste des acteurs du débat
Procon-historical-background.png|alt=La frise historique de Procon|Une frise historique
Procon-did-you-know.png|alt=Page "Le saviez-vous ?" sur Procon|Une page "Le saviez-vous ?"
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Tableau récapitulatif==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Arguments rassemblés par familles !! Titre aux arguments !! Objections aux arguments !! Sous-niveaux d’arguments !! Arguments détaillés !! Citations !! Défenseurs de l’argument !! Liens entre débats !! Ressources informatives
!Contenu libre de droits
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

2022-03-17T16:16:48Z

PMercateng: /* Strengths and weaknesses */

{{Wikidebates banner}}
{{TOC
|level=1
}}

'''Wikidebates''' is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.

Somme of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Certains sites, plus proches du format de Wikidébats, présentent de façon linéaire les arguments en regroupant dans une première partie les arguments « pour », dans une seconde partie les arguments « contre ».
<gallery>
Arguman.png|alt=Argüman et sa arbre argumentatif|[http://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
Debategraph.png|alt=Debategraph et ses cartes mentales|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
Hyperdebat.png|alt=Hyperdébat et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
Idebate.png|alt=Idebate et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
Kialo.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre des « pour » et « contre »|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo]
Procon.png|alt=Procon et son tableau en « pour »/« contre »|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
Proversi.png|alt=Proversi et son tableau « argument »/« objection »|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre logique|[http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy]
Wikidebate.png|alt=Wikidebate et ses boîtes encastrées|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
Wikidebats-screenshot.png|alt=Wikidébats et sa liste d'arguments « pour » et « contre »|[http://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
</gallery>

Other similar debating platforms and sites : [https://carneades.github.io/index.html Carneades], [http://truthsift.com Truthsift], [http://www.debate.org/ Debate], [https://dialoguea.fr Dialoguea],

Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped in “families” or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded in a dedicated page or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources in order to bring extra information.

Ces différences de fonctionnalités jouent ainsi sur la richesse et la variété des informations que les sites de débats compilent. Elles constituent autant de points forts et de points faibles, rassemblés dans le tableau suivant.

==Strengths and weaknesses==
{| class="wikitable" |
|-
! Name of the site !! Language !! Format !! Strengths !! Weaknesses
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com/ Kialo] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tree-like tables || style="text-align:left;" |
* Readable, clear interface
* Ability to easily find arguments
* Recursive “pros” and “cons”
* Links between arguments
* Flagging options (i.e. “Not clear”, “Duplicate claim”, “Unrelated”, etc.)
* Arguments may be commented upon and shared
|
* Multiple logical levels
* Skeletal presentation
* Pas de citations
* No named references
* No additional information ressources
* Argument display wether upvoted or downvoted
* No open-licence content
|-
| [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || style="text-align:center;" | fr || style="text-align:center;" | List || style="text-align:left;" |
* Multiple arguments and sub-arguments
* Many quotations
* Many added informational ressources
* Relevant comments are added in the debate
* Open-licence content
* Reflection texts on the debate methodical
||
* Page interface austere and unpractical
* No in-depth argumentation
|-
| [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Card, tree or cans || style="text-align:left;" |
* Presentation under very card shape visual
* Display mode entirely customizable
* Many sub-argument levels “for”/“against”
||
* Complexity of the interface
* Slow navigation
* Arguments no detailed
* Content not free of rights
|-
|-
| [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || style="text-align:center;" | it || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Beautiful interface
* Richness of argument descriptions
* “Debate in 2 minutes” summary
* Response videos expert
* Debates in the form of ebooks
||
* Language level academic
* Complexity of descriptive arguments
* Debates in the form of themes rather than questions
* Debates without links between them
* Ebooks pay
* Content not free of rights
|-
| [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Table || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Différence entre pages d’arguments et pages de débats
* Citations dans des pages d’arguments spécifiques
* Nombreuses catégories de débats
* Interface Wikipédia
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations plus que résumés d’arguments
* Interface austère
|-
| [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Boîtes encastrées || style="text-align:left;" |
* Intégration à la Wikiversité
* Clarté des résumés d'arguments
* Système de boîtes encastrées
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Système d'arguments valides ou réfutés
|-
| [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre « pour »/« contre »
* Jolie interface de l'arbre
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Manque de lisibilité du titre des débats
* Absence de sous-catégories de débats
* Site tout-en-un
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments approfondis avec exemples
||
* Affichage en colonnes problématique
* Pas de citations
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.riyarchy.com/intro Riyarchy] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Arbre || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments pas rassemblés par familles
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas de sources/références
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Idée d’« argument invaincu »
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| style="text-align:center;" | en, es, fr, tr || style="text-align:center;" | Arbre || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arbre logique
* Nombreux sous-niveaux d’arguments et d'objections
* Jolie interface
||
* Arguments non détaillés
* Arguments sans défenseurs
* Pas de citations
* Pas d’introduction au débat
* Pas de ressources informatives complémentaires
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Tableau || style="text-align:left;" |
* Tableau « pour »/« contre »
* Nombreuses ressources informatives
* Nombreuses citations
* Fiches d’identité des protagonistes du débat
* Débats regroupés par sujets
||
* Arguments trop succincts
* Pas d’objections aux arguments
* Citations en liste non organisée
* Interface trop chargée
* Contenu non libre de droits
|-
| [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || style="text-align:center;" | en || style="text-align:center;" | Liste || style="text-align:left;" |
* Arguments « pour » et « contre » pour chaque argument
* Défenseurs de l’argument
* Contenu libre de droits
||
* Encyclopédie d’arguments plus que de débats
* Pas de portail des débats
* Pas de citations
|}

==Main problems==
À l'aune de ce tableau, les encyclopédies existantes souffrent de différents manques, que l'on pourrait distinguer comme suit.

===Arguments that are not grouped===
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
<gallery perrow="5">
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres|Argumentrix : des arguments les uns à la suite des autres
Debatewise-arguments-list.png|alt=Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »|Debatewise : une liste de « pour » et de « contre »
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Debatepedia : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes|Procon : une liste séparée en deux colonnes
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés|Riyarchy : 4 pages d'arguments listés
</gallery>

===Single-level arguments===
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
<gallery perrow="4">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections|Debatewise : pas d'objections possibles aux objections
Idebate-arguments2.png|alt=Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout|Idebate : pour chaque argument, ses objections, et c'est tout
Riyarchy-tree-structure.png|alt=Riyarchy et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Deux exceptions : Riyarchy
Kialo-tree-structure.png|alt=Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches|Kialo et son arbre aux multiples sous-branches
</gallery>

===Arguments without objections===
Some encyclopedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : des arguments sans objections|Debatepedia
Procon.png|alt=Procon : des arguments sans objections|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments that lack in depth or in detail===
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
<gallery perrow="5">
Debatepedia.png|alt=Debatepedia : un paragraphe|Debatepedia : un paragraphe
Hyperdebat-arguments.png|alt=Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases|Hyperdébat : une ou deux phrases
Idebate-arguments.png|alt=Idebate : un paragraphe|Idebate : un paragraphe
Procon-arguments.png|alt=Procon : un paragraphe|Procon : un paragraphe
Riyarchy.png|alt=Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes|Riyarchy : un ou deux paragraphes
</gallery>

===Arguments without quotations===
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="Un exemple d'exception">
Procon.png|alt=Les citations sur Procon|Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no advocates===
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description, can help better understand the arguments and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopedias, and only one has short biographies of the figures of reference.
<gallery perrow="2" caption="Quelques exceptions">
Debatepedia-protagonists.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|Les acteurs pro et anti du débat sur Debatepedia
Procon-ID.png|alt=Une fiche d'identité sur Procon|Une fiche d'identité sur Procon
</gallery>

===Arguments with no titles===
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words allowing for and immediate idea after a quick overview. Some sites don’t do it.
<gallery perrow="2">
Debatewise.png|alt=Debatewise|Debatewise
Argumentrix.png|alt=Argumentrix|Argumentrix
</gallery>

===Debates which are not interlinked===
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
<gallery perrow="1" caption="Une exception notable">
Debategraph-links.png|alt=Un réseau de débats sur Debategraph|Debategraph
</gallery>

===Debates with little or no further information===
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
<gallery perrow="4" caption="Les bonnes idées de Procon">
Procon-glossary.png|alt=Le glossaire de Procon|Un glossaire
Procon-actors-list.png|alt=La liste des acteurs du débat sur Procon|La liste des acteurs du débat
Procon-historical-background.png|alt=La frise historique de Procon|Une frise historique
Procon-did-you-know.png|alt=Page "Le saviez-vous ?" sur Procon|Une page "Le saviez-vous ?"
</gallery>

===Copyrighted content and technology===
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through [[Wikidebates:Copyrights|Creative Commons]] licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

==Tableau récapitulatif==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |
|-
! !! Arguments rassemblés par familles !! Titre aux arguments !! Objections aux arguments !! Sous-niveaux d’arguments !! Arguments détaillés !! Citations !! Défenseurs de l’argument !! Liens entre débats !! Ressources informatives
!Contenu libre de droits
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats] || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|x
|
|x
|x
|
|
|
|x
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat] || x || || x || x || || x || x || || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debategraph.org DebateGraph] || x || x || x || x || || x || x || x || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi] || x || x || x || || x || x || x || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia] || ||x|| || || x || x || || x || x
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate] || x || || x || x || || || || ||
|x
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate] || || x || x || || || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://debatewise.org Debatewise] || x || x || x || || x || || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy] || || x || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]|| || || x || x || || || || ||
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.procon.org/ Procon] || || || || || || x || || || x
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix] || || x || x || || x || || x || || x
|x
|}

== En savoir plus sur ces sites ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Nom
!Qualification
!Année de lancement
!Activité du site
|-
|[https://fr.wikidebates.org Wikidébats]
|« L'encyclopédie des débats »
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[https://www.kialo.com Kialo]
|« Une plateforme de débat alimentée par la raison »<ref>"A debate platform powered by reason"</ref>
|2017
|En activité
|-
|[http://hyperdebat.net/ Hyperdébat]
|« Débattre avec méthode »
|2002
|En lecture seule depuis janvier 2017
|-
|[http://debategraph.org DebateGraph]
|« Une plateforme web primée pour visualiser et partager des réseaux de réflexions »<ref>"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"</ref>
|2008
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.proversi.it/ Proversi]
|« Une plateforme web de débat public »<ref>"Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"</ref>
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]
|« Le Wikipédia des débats »<ref>"The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues"</ref>
|2007
|En lecture seule depuis novembre 2011
|-
|[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate Wikidebate]
|« Un projet collaboratif pour mettre au point des débats structurés »<ref>"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"</ref>
|2016
|En activité
|-
|[http://idebate.org/debatabase Idebate]
|« Une base de débats »<ref>"Debatabase"</ref>
|2011
|En activité
|-
|[http://debatewise.org Debatewise]
|
|2007
|Plus à jour
|-
|[http://www.riyarchy.com Riyarchy]
|« Un arbre d’arguments collaboratif »<ref>"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"</ref>
|2012
|Site fermé en 2016
|-
|[https://fr.arguman.org/ Argüman]
|« Une plateforme d’argumentation »
|2015
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.procon.org/ Procon]
|« Des pour et contre sur des questions controversées »<ref>"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"</ref>
|2004
|En activité
|-
|[http://www.argumentrix.com Argumentrix]
|« Un wiki d’affirmations et réfutations »<ref>"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"</ref>
|2011
|Plus à jour depuis 2013
|}

{{Your comments section}}
{{More about Wikidebates}}
{{Meta tags
|title=Comparison of existing debate encyclopedias
|description=Wikidebates is not the only debate encyclopedia. Other sites exist, which have both strengths and weaknesses.
}}
<h2>References</h2>

Wikidebates:Beyond Complexity

2021-01-29T16:53:51Z

PMercateng:

''Written by Emmanuel-Juste Duits, published on his blog “Tolerance Active” (Active Tolerance), as well as in his book “Après le Relativisme”, this text presents the importance of developing a method for debating the essential issues at stake in society, so as not to leave any individual feeling overwhelmed by the sheer amount, and complexity, of these issues.''

Everyone is expected to vote, even without an in-depth study of different political programs; each chooses a religion (or atheism), even without necessarily having looked into every metaphysical “option”; each makes practical decisions, even without necessarily having examined all the contradictory facts regarding technical issues. How can one escape this? is it even possible?

'''In the face of complex problems'''

One can be in denial and consider that some issues simply are beyond us, and that we should’t even have an opinion in the first.

This is called relativism, and it becomes an excuse to not decide on anything. In fact it means adhering to dominant choices or life-styles. If I say that it is far too complicated to to know if organic agriculture is important for us or not, I actually revert to eating standard processed or mainstream food. If I say that I don’t have time to study all the different political options available, I will choose between two or three programs and parties (the most famous ones, propagated in mainstream media). And as for religion, I’ll tend to stick to the one of my family and background, or adopt some form of tolerant indifference.

'''The intellectual fallacy and its vital consequences'''

Two erroneous attitudes are often our lot: not choosing, or choosing the easiest paths, the ones that require little or no personal inquiry. These attitudes favour short-term survival, but might not help or even harm us in the long-term. Any mistake in judgement is paid for, sooner or later. I might live for years smoking or drinking, or eating very unhealthy foods, exposing myself to bad radiation: I’ll be progressively poisoning myself and will suffer the consequences sooner or later with disease, depression or an early death.

The same is true for political and social mistakes. A society can adopt an erroneous economic system, it will only pay the price later, through some latent crisis which will suddenly take on a dramatic turn, with millions of unemployed, costly healthcare, a rise in social tensions and violence… In short, political mistakes might cause ruin and civil war, or major environmental disasters. The same goes for spiritual errors. I might feel protected and energised within a cult, but in the long run where will it have taken me? How many former members of a cult realise that they have lost five, ten or even twenty years of their lives fallowing a false prophet, one who stole the money, was a closeted pedophile or just plain insane? The same goes for political mistakes, such as when an activist realises after years that the cause he or she defended was a dictatorship, far removed from his or her ideals.

Religious error might be even worse. If Pascal is right, if the Catholic Church or Islam are right, then we will be judged by God after we die. Such a judgement cannot be taken lightly, as it would lead us to Heaven or Hell and eternal tortures and suffering. We can see by these extreme examples (which are not caricatures) that everyone has the greatest interest in making the best possible choices, lest he or she pay a heavy price later.

'''What is valid research?'''

One can define three moments in the process of searching

-the moment when I discover an issue, a problem,

-the moment when I identify and confront the different sides on the issue,

-the moment when, having taken my side (or a possible explanation), I consolidate it with new arguments, facts etc. During this third moment, finding myself overwhelmed by too thick of an ensemble of contradictory propositions, I might revert to relativism, without deciding.

It is easy to see that the first and third moments are usually accomplished by most: we are always bombarded with many questions, from the most technical to the most metaphysical. Are mobile antennas bad for our health? What alternatives are to be found too nuclear energy? Are there elements of consciousness that remain after we die? And so on. It is often easy to find books and websites offering answers. Partisans of green politics have their websites, just like free-market advocates; there are atheist websites, Catholic or Muslim ones, each of which developing their respective claims on dedicated forums. Books offer argued points of view, albeit with more or less partisanship.

'''Agora'''

A methodical confrontation of opinions seems to be the missing link. Are there impartial sites or books that present the different arguments and allow us to dissect them?

This is a crucial question. Without platforms sufficiently neutral and comprehensive, each must form an opinion based on partisan facts and arguments, but mostly “by chance or even accident”. Unless one has years to dedicate to it, it is impossible to study every issue that contains an in depth question in ecology, economics, health, metaphysics, sociology, etc. This means that most of our opinions -apart for one or two subjects for which we have created a true individual stance for ourselves- are poorly founded, and have more to do with chance: our backgrounds, or the forms of reasoning which we have encountered, rather than demanding methodical and profound research.

Through our conditioning and by the complexity of topics and issues, we are trapped in having only incertain and fragmentary opinions (except maybe for one or two topics), because there is no comprehensive tool to confront possible opinions in an optimal way.

Proposition for the unsatisfied active

Being unsatisfied by this existential situation, shouldn’t we try to create new tools for whomever feels the need to search the Truth? Instead, we prefer to make choices without method, and then resort to our favourite opinions. We must resolutely depart from this intellectual confort zone and go down the opposite path, one which will lead us to confront cognitive dissonance. We must accept that only a rigorous and implacable motion down this path will help make emerge a few fragments of truth.

'''Utopia'''

We propose a different path: to promote a standard and generalisable method for most of the Great Questions, be they technical, political, economical, ecological or spiritual.

This method should allow to “see all sides” of different proposed opinions, of arguments pro and con for each option; to go in depth on each of these to validate or invalidate them; all this in order that in the end, each individual person, each citizen can choose a stance on topics of choice, only this time through being as informed as possible.

Such a method is ambitious, maybe even a form of utopia. It is nothing short of an intellectual revolution, a great leap. Rather than collectively remain in a complex and chaotic stage of knowledge, where each struggles alone with his or her questions and tries to find a path, we could rediscover the meaning of true debate, beyond confusion, fears, splits; allowing all to to work towards collective intelligence, the only solution to the challenges and complexity we face.

Wikidebates:Beyond Complexity

2021-01-29T16:52:59Z

PMercateng:

''Written by Emmanuel-Juste Duits, published on his blog “Tolerance Active” (Active Tolerance), as well as in his book “Après le Relativisme”, this text presents the importance of developing a method for debating the essential issues at stake in society, so as not to leave any individual feeling overwhelmed by the sheer amount, and complexity, of these issues.''

Everyone is expected to vote, even without an in-depth study of different political programs; each chooses a religion (or atheism), even without necessarily having looked into every metaphysical “option”; each makes practical decisions, even without necessarily having examined all the contradictory facts regarding technical issues. How can one escape this? is it even possible?

'''In the face of complex problems'''

One can be in denial and consider that some issues simply are beyond us, and that we should’t have an opinion.

This is called relativism, and it becomes an excuse to not decide on anything. In fact it means adhering to dominant choices or life-styles. If I say that it is far too complicated to to know if organic agriculture is important for us or not, I actually revert to eating standard processed or mainstream food. If I say that I don’t have time to study all the different political options available, I will choose between two or three programs and parties (the most famous ones, propagated in mainstream media). And as for religion, I’ll tend to stick to the one of my family and background, or adopt some form of tolerant indifference.

'''The intellectual fallacy and its vital consequences'''

Two erroneous attitudes are often our lot: not choosing, or choosing the easiest paths, the ones that require little or no personal inquiry. These attitudes favour short-term survival, but might not help or even harm us in the long-term. Any mistake in judgement is paid for, sooner or later. I might live for years smoking or drinking, or eating very unhealthy foods, exposing myself to bad radiation: I’ll be progressively poisoning myself and will suffer the consequences sooner or later with disease, depression or an early death.

The same is true for political and social mistakes. A society can adopt an erroneous economic system, it will only pay the price later, through some latent crisis which will suddenly take on a dramatic turn, with millions of unemployed, costly healthcare, a rise in social tensions and violence… In short, political mistakes might cause ruin and civil war, or major environmental disasters. The same goes for spiritual errors. I might feel protected and energised within a cult, but in the long run where will it have taken me? How many former members of a cult realise that they have lost five, ten or even twenty years of their lives fallowing a false prophet, one who stole the money, was a closeted pedophile or just plain insane? The same goes for political mistakes, such as when an activist realises after years that the cause he or she defended was a dictatorship, far removed from his or her ideals.

Religious error might be even worse. If Pascal is right, if the Catholic Church or Islam are right, then we will be judged by God after we die. Such a judgement cannot be taken lightly, as it would lead us to Heaven or Hell and eternal tortures and suffering. We can see by these extreme examples (which are not caricatures) that everyone has the greatest interest in making the best possible choices, lest he or she pay a heavy price later.

'''What is valid research?'''

One can define three moments in the process of searching

-the moment when I discover an issue, a problem,

-the moment when I identify and confront the different sides on the issue,

-the moment when, having taken my side (or a possible explanation), I consolidate it with new arguments, facts etc. During this third moment, finding myself overwhelmed by too thick of an ensemble of contradictory propositions, I might revert to relativism, without deciding.

It is easy to see that the first and third moments are usually accomplished by most: we are always bombarded with many questions, from the most technical to the most metaphysical. Are mobile antennas bad for our health? What alternatives are to be found too nuclear energy? Are there elements of consciousness that remain after we die? And so on. It is often easy to find books and websites offering answers. Partisans of green politics have their websites, just like free-market advocates; there are atheist websites, Catholic or Muslim ones, each of which developing their respective claims on dedicated forums. Books offer argued points of view, albeit with more or less partisanship.

'''Agora'''

A methodical confrontation of opinions seems to be the missing link. Are there impartial sites or books that present the different arguments and allow us to dissect them?

This is a crucial question. Without platforms sufficiently neutral and comprehensive, each must form an opinion based on partisan facts and arguments, but mostly “by chance or even accident”. Unless one has years to dedicate to it, it is impossible to study every issue that contains an in depth question in ecology, economics, health, metaphysics, sociology, etc. This means that most of our opinions -apart for one or two subjects for which we have created a true individual stance for ourselves- are poorly founded, and have more to do with chance: our backgrounds, or the forms of reasoning which we have encountered, rather than demanding methodical and profound research.

Through our conditioning and by the complexity of topics and issues, we are trapped in having only incertain and fragmentary opinions (except maybe for one or two topics), because there is no comprehensive tool to confront possible opinions in an optimal way.

Proposition for the unsatisfied active

Being unsatisfied by this existential situation, shouldn’t we try to create new tools for whomever feels the need to search the Truth? Instead, we prefer to make choices without method, and then resort to our favourite opinions. We must resolutely depart from this intellectual confort zone and go down the opposite path, one which will lead us to confront cognitive dissonance. We must accept that only a rigorous and implacable motion down this path will help make emerge a few fragments of truth.

'''Utopia'''

We propose a different path: to promote a standard and generalisable method for most of the Great Questions, be they technical, political, economical, ecological or spiritual.

This method should allow to “see all sides” of different proposed opinions, of arguments pro and con for each option; to go in depth on each of these to validate or invalidate them; all this in order that in the end, each individual person, each citizen can choose a stance on topics of choice, only this time through being as informed as possible.

Such a method is ambitious, maybe even a form of utopia. It is nothing short of an intellectual revolution, a great leap. Rather than collectively remain in a complex and chaotic stage of knowledge, where each struggles alone with his or her questions and tries to find a path, we could rediscover the meaning of true debate, beyond confusion, fears, splits; allowing all to to work towards collective intelligence, the only solution to the challenges and complexity we face.

Wikidebates:Beyond Complexity

2021-01-29T16:50:36Z

PMercateng:

''Written by Emmanuel-Juste Duits, published on his blog “Tolerance Active” (Active Tolerance), as well as in his book “Après le Relativisme”, this text presents the importance of developing a method for debating the essential issues at stake in society, so as not to leave any individual feeling overwhelmed by the sheer amount, and complexity, of these issues.''

Everyone is expected to vote, without an in-depth study of different political programs; each chooses a religion or atheism without necessarily having looked into every metaphysical “option”; each makes practical decisions without necessarily having examined contradictory facts on technical issues. How can one escape this ? is it even possible ?

'''In the face of complex problems'''

One can be in denial and consider that some issues simply are beyond us, and that we should’t have an opinion.

This is called relativism, and it becomes an excuse to not decide on anything. In fact it means adhering to dominant choices or life-styles. If I say that it is far too complicated to to know if organic agriculture is important for us or not, I actually revert to eating standard processed or mainstream food. If I say that I don’t have time to study all the different political options available, I will choose between two or three programs and parties (the most famous ones, propagated in mainstream media). And as for religion, I’ll tend to stick to the one of my family and background, or adopt some form of tolerant indifference.

'''The intellectual fallacy and its vital consequences'''

Two erroneous attitudes are often our lot: not choosing, or choosing the easiest paths, the ones that require little or no personal inquiry. These attitudes favour short-term survival, but might not help or even harm us in the long-term. Any mistake in judgement is paid for, sooner or later. I might live for years smoking or drinking, or eating very unhealthy foods, exposing myself to bad radiation: I’ll be progressively poisoning myself and will suffer the consequences sooner or later with disease, depression or an early death.

The same is true for political and social mistakes. A society can adopt an erroneous economic system, it will only pay the price later, through some latent crisis which will suddenly take on a dramatic turn, with millions of unemployed, costly healthcare, a rise in social tensions and violence… In short, political mistakes might cause ruin and civil war, or major environmental disasters. The same goes for spiritual errors. I might feel protected and energised within a cult, but in the long run where will it have taken me? How many former members of a cult realise that they have lost five, ten or even twenty years of their lives fallowing a false prophet, one who stole the money, was a closeted pedophile or just plain insane? The same goes for political mistakes, such as when an activist realises after years that the cause he or she defended was a dictatorship, far removed from his or her ideals.

Religious error might be even worse. If Pascal is right, if the Catholic Church or Islam are right, then we will be judged by God after we die. Such a judgement cannot be taken lightly, as it would lead us to Heaven or Hell and eternal tortures and suffering. We can see by these extreme examples (which are not caricatures) that everyone has the greatest interest in making the best possible choices, lest he or she pay a heavy price later.

'''What is valid research?'''

One can define three moments in the process of searching

-the moment when I discover an issue, a problem,

-the moment when I identify and confront the different sides on the issue,

-the moment when, having taken my side (or a possible explanation), I consolidate it with new arguments, facts etc. During this third moment, finding myself overwhelmed by too thick of an ensemble of contradictory propositions, I might revert to relativism, without deciding.

It is easy to see that the first and third moments are usually accomplished by most: we are always bombarded with many questions, from the most technical to the most metaphysical. Are mobile antennas bad for our health? What alternatives are to be found too nuclear energy? Are there elements of consciousness that remain after we die? And so on. It is often easy to find books and websites offering answers. Partisans of green politics have their websites, just like free-market advocates; there are atheist websites, Catholic or Muslim ones, each of which developing their respective claims on dedicated forums. Books offer argued points of view, albeit with more or less partisanship.

'''Agora'''

A methodical confrontation of opinions seems to be the missing link. Are there impartial sites or books that present the different arguments and allow us to dissect them?

This is a crucial question. Without platforms sufficiently neutral and comprehensive, each must form an opinion based on partisan facts and arguments, but mostly “by chance or even accident”. Unless one has years to dedicate to it, it is impossible to study every issue that contains an in depth question in ecology, economics, health, metaphysics, sociology, etc. This means that most of our opinions -apart for one or two subjects for which we have created a true individual stance for ourselves- are poorly founded, and have more to do with chance: our backgrounds, or the forms of reasoning which we have encountered, rather than demanding methodical and profound research.

Through our conditioning and by the complexity of topics and issues, we are trapped in having only incertain and fragmentary opinions (except maybe for one or two topics), because there is no comprehensive tool to confront possible opinions in an optimal way.

Proposition for the unsatisfied active

Being unsatisfied by this existential situation, shouldn’t we try to create new tools for whomever feels the need to search the Truth? Instead, we prefer to make choices without method, and then resort to our favourite opinions. We must resolutely depart from this intellectual confort zone and go down the opposite path, one which will lead us to confront cognitive dissonance. We must accept that only a rigorous and implacable motion down this path will help make emerge a few fragments of truth.

'''Utopia'''

We propose a different path: to promote a standard and generalisable method for most of the Great Questions, be they technical, political, economical, ecological or spiritual.

This method should allow to “see all sides” of different proposed opinions, of arguments pro and con for each option; to go in depth on each of these to validate or invalidate them; all this in order that in the end, each individual person, each citizen can choose a stance on topics of choice, only this time through being as informed as possible.

Such a method is ambitious, maybe even a form of utopia. It is nothing short of an intellectual revolution, a great leap. Rather than collectively remain in a complex and chaotic stage of knowledge, where each struggles alone with his or her questions and tries to find a path, we could rediscover the meaning of true debate, beyond confusion, fears, splits; allowing all to to work towards collective intelligence, the only solution to the challenges and complexity we face.

Wikidebates:Founding Principles

2021-01-29T16:48:10Z

PMercateng:

Wikidebates’ founding principles set up the guidelines which define the ways this encyclopaedia was created and how operates. They are at the root of every rule and recommendation surrounding this project. These principles are exhaustivity, charity, non-partisanship, readability, impersonality, verifiability, free content, mutual respect and civility.

'''Principles regarding neutrality'''

'''Comprehensiveness'''

Any debate and any assertion is welcome on Wikidebates, regardless of its justification or of how prevalent it is in society. This principle is only bounded by the limits of the Law, and by the principle of verifiability.

''Are therefore inventoried on Wikidebates: minority assertions, inexact assertions, extremist, immoral or non-scientific assertions; so long as these can be assessed as existing in the public sphere, and do not go against the law. What matters is not that there be as many “for” and “against” assertions, but rather that each assertion be listed.''

'''Charity'''

Each debate must be presented in a way that is the most favorable possible to each side, pro or con. Thus, arguments must be formulated in their strongest and most convincing versions. In support of a claim, the bibliography, websites, videography and chosen quotes must favor solid arguments and quality sources. Arguments which are poor in content, dishonest, grossly exaggerated or distorted are not welcome on Wikidebates.

'''Non-partisanship'''

Wikidebates takes no side and supports no other claim than those contained in its founding principles.

Thus, no argument indexed on Wikidebates is endorsed by either the encyclopaedia or its governing body. Arguments are inventoried only insofar as they are supported by individuals or groups who express them publicly. No moral claim or judgement – explicit or implicit, positive or negative – can thus be expressed other than the arguments or rebuttals which are inventoried, and of the limits the founding principles.

'''Principles regarding the encyclopaedic nature of the project'''

'''Readability'''

Wikidebates aims at providing concise and structured content, written in a clear and accessible language.

Pages must respect a predefined presentation format focused on arguments. Arguments must be summarised using simple vocabulary and syntax, as well as be grouped by family when numerous. Each claim is expanded and developed in a specific separate page. Sub-debates, when complex, are to be treated as debates in their own right in distinct pages, to which the reader is guided if in desire to study the matter further.

'''Impersonality'''

Besides quotes, claims indexed on Wikidebates are not to be personal opinions or testimonies, but general arguments, presented without direct reference to their authors or proponents.

Thus, Wikidebates should not reference claims formulated in ways such as “I believe that […]” or “So and so says that […]”, but rather directly what the claim is.

'''Verifiability'''

Content on Wikidebates must be supported by sources.

Thus, all arguments indexed must be attributed to an author or to a well identified group. If a claim being made is considered senseless by contributors, a sourced citation or quote is to be provided proving that such a claim is truly supported. Introductions to debates which contain quotes, numbers or obscure information must mention the source which supports them.

'''Principles regarding the collaborative nature of the project'''

'''Free content'''

Wikidebates is an encyclopaedia published under the Creative Commons 3.0 licence, granting identical sharing and paternity terms of use.

Anyone is free to copy, modify and distribute Wikidebates content, under the condition that the source and licence be provided, and that produced/modified content remain under aforementioned licence. Added content must comply with copyright law.

'''Respect and civility'''

Contributions and exchanges between contributors are made in accordance with the rules of common courtesy.

As a contributor, you are required to respect your fellow contributors, even when you disagree with them. You must remain polite, courteous and respectful. You are to seek consensus rather than being aggressive towards people, or formulating insulting generalisations. Keep your cool in the face of a heated argument, and avoid any “editing warfare”. Take part in the spirit of good faith, and assume that your fellow contributors are in the same mind-frame, unless it is obviously not the case. Try to be open, welcoming and friendly.

Wikidebates:Aims

2021-01-29T16:40:24Z

PMercateng:

# '''Wikidebates is an encyclopaedia of debates of which the primary objective is to help form educated and rational opinions,''' ie formed after examining “pro” and “con” arguments.
# Wikidebates thus helps form enlightened minds, able to exercise critical thinking. This is one of the essential conditions to a democratic society’s well-being, a democracy founded upon citizen engagement and debate of political propositions.
# Beyond this objective, a tool like Wikidebates purposes to propagate a method, a way of presenting or exhibiting debates for personal acquisition. It is thus an instrument to accompany debates of all kinds. Its use can only help to improve the quality of everyday debates, from everyday conversations to essential collective public ones.
# To reach this goal, the encyclopaedia’s format and language must be as accessible as possible. Wikidebates purposes to be perceived as a tool for all users, allowing as many people as possible to feel confortable with any topic, especially those that can be sometimes perceived as complex.

Wikidebates:Educational Use and Purposes

2021-01-29T16:33:38Z

PMercateng:

If you are a teacher and are interested in debates and critical opinion-related topics, you might consider having your students contribute to Wikidebates by structuring and summarising a debate.

'''Who is it for?'''

-Students aged 10 to 18

-University students or any adult higher learning program

'''What are the tasks?'''

A complete or partial elaboration of a Wikidebates entry, the broad content of which includes:

-An introduction

-A comprehensive and structured summary of the “pro” and “con” arguments

-For each of the those, a short description and its dedicated page

-For each of those, corresponding refutals or objections

-For each argument or refutal, one or more citation

-Referenced sources such as a bibliography, websites or videography.

'''How can it be done?'''

-In classroom workshops

-As homework projects

-Part of school-sponsored internships/youth projects

'''What are the general goals?'''

-Discovering the principles of democratic contradiction and debate culture

-Learning critical thinking

-Learning to tackle complicated issues in all their complexities

-Learning to structure/summarise thoughts around a given problem

-Learning to deal with conflicting opinions

'''What are the skills developed?'''

-Learn how to research arguments amongst different sources and media

-Learn to analyse a given problem and breaking it down into different arguments

-Learn how to separate and organise pro and con positions, and their respective objections

-Learn to write concise and structured introductions and descriptions for each argument

-Learn to reference your sources

-Learn to use game-changing collaborative digital tools such as Mediawiki, Twitter, Slack/Framateam, Google Docs/Framapad

'''Some examples (in French):'''

-Should freedom of speech be limited? A page created during a cross-topical workshop including Literature and History by French middle school pupils aged 10-14, June 2017.

-Are vaccines dangerous? Scientific sources added to the debate by undergraduate Biology students, September 2017.

-Are professional Football players overpaid? Collection of arguments and objections written by French graduate students in Social Sciences, Evry University, November 2017.

-Should borders be abolished? A page created by high school students of Tremblay-en-France, April 2018.

'''Helpful links:'''

-Using a wiki

-Structure a debate

-Write a page debate

-Table of contents of “help” pages

'''Further reading about Wikidebates'''

-About Wikidebates

-Wikidebates: what it is and what it isn’t

-Origins of the project

-Wikidebates: objectives

'''About us:'''

The governing body includes teachers, writers, engineers, students, health professionals; all members of the french “Laboratoire du débat méthodique”.

'''How we can help:'''

-Help you get familiar with Wikidebates’ tools and its method;

-Provide guiding and counselling for contributors

'''Contact:'''

Please fill-out this form.

Wikidebates:Founding Principles

2021-01-29T16:22:04Z

PMercateng:

Wikidebates’ founding principles set up the guidelines which define the ways this encyclopaedia was created and how operates. They are at the root of every rule and recommendation surrounding this project. These principles are exhaustivity, charity, non-partisanship, readability, impersonality, verifiability, free content, mutual respect and civility.

'''Principles regarding neutrality'''

'''Comprehensiveness'''

Any debate and any assertion is welcome on Wikidebates, regardless of its justification or of how prevalent it is in society. This principle is only bounded by the limits of the Law, and by the principle of verifiability.

''Are therefore inventoried on Wikidebates: minority assertions, inexact assertions, extremist, immoral or non-scientific assertions; so long as these can be assessed as existing in the public sphere, and do not go against the law. What matters is not that there be as many “for” and “against” assertions, but rather that each assertion be listed.''

'''Charity'''

Each debate must be presented in a way that is the most favorable possible to each side, pro or con. Thus, arguments must be formulated in their strongest and most convincing versions. In support of a claim, the bibliography, websites, videography and chosen quotes must favor solid arguments and quality sources. Arguments which are poor in content, dishonest, grossly exaggerated or distorted are not welcome on Wikidebates.

'''Non-partisanship'''

Wikidebates takes no side and supports no other claim than those contained in its founding principles.

Thus, no argument indexed on Wikidebates is endorsed by either the encyclopaedia or its governing body. Arguments are inventoried only insofar as they are supported by individuals or groups who express them publicly. No moral claim or judgement – explicit or implicit, positive or negative – can thus be expressed other than the arguments or rebuttals which are inventoried, and of the limits the founding principles.

'''Principles regarding the encyclopaedic nature of the project'''

'''Readability'''

Wikidebates aims at providing concise and structured content, written in a clear and accessible language.

Pages must respect a predefined presentation format focused on arguments. Arguments must be summarised using simple vocabulary and syntax, as well as be grouped by family when numerous. Each claim is expanded and developed in a specific separate page. Sub-debates, when complex, are to be treated as debates in their own right in distinct pages, to which the reader is guided if in desire to study the matter further.

'''Impersonality'''

Besides quotes, claims indexed on Wikidebates are not to be personal opinions or testimonies, but general arguments, presented without direct reference to their authors or proponents.

Thus, Wikidebates should not reference claims formulated in ways such as “I believe that […]” or “So and so says that […]”, but rather directly merely what the claim is, ie that person’s argument(s).

'''Verifiability'''

Content on Wikidebates must be supported by sources.

Thus, all arguments indexed must be attributed to an author or to a well identified group. If a claim being made is considered senseless by contributors, a sourced citation or quote is to be provided proving that such a claim is truly supported. Introductions to debates which contain quotes, numbers or obscure information must mention the source which supports them.

'''Principles regarding the collaborative nature of the project'''

'''Free content'''

Wikidebates is an encyclopaedia published under the Creative Commons 3.0 licence, granting identical sharing and paternity terms of use.

Anyone is free to copy, modify and distribute Wikidebates content, under the condition that the source and licence be provided, and that produced/modified content remain under aforementioned licence. Added content must comply with copyright law.

'''Respect and civility'''

Contributions and exchanges between contributors are made in accordance with the rules of common courtesy.

As a contributor, you are required to respect your fellow contributors, even when you disagree with them. You must remain polite, courteous and respectful. You are to seek consensus rather than being aggressive towards people, or formulating insulting generalisations. Keep your cool in the face of a heated argument, and avoid any “editing warfare”. Take part in the spirit of good faith, and assume that your fellow contributors are in the same mind-frame, unless it is obviously not the case. Try to be open, welcoming and friendly.