Wikidebates:Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias

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 Carneades, Truthsift, Debate and 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.

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

Name of the site	Language	Format	Strengths	Weaknesses
Kialo	en	Tree-like tables	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
Hyperdébat	fr	List	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
DebateGraph	en	Card-based presentation	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
Proversi	it	Table	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
Debatepedia	en	Table	"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
Wikidebate	en	Box-based presentation	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
Idebate	en	Table	"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
Debatewise	en	Table	In-depth arguments with examples	Column-based interface is problematic No quotes or citations Content is not free of rights
Riyarchy	en	Arborescent chart	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
Argüman	en, es, fr, tr	Arborescent chart	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
Procon	en	Table	"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
Argumentrix	en	Lists	"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.

Argumentrix : arguments simply follow one another.
Debatewise : a list of "PRO" and "CON" arguments.
Debatepedia : a list divided into two separate columns.
Procon : a list, divided into two columns.
Riyarchy : 4 pages of listed arguments.

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.

Debatewise : no possible refutations to listed objections.
Idebate : for each argument, its corresponding refutations, that is all.
Two ecxeptions : Riyarchy
Kialo and its multiple branch tree model.

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.

Debatepedia
Procon

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.

Debatepedia : one paragraph.
Hyperdébat : one or two sentences.
Idebate : one paragraph.
Procon : one paragraph.
Riyarchy : one or two paragraphs.

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.

An example of an exception.
Procon

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.

Some exceptions.
Pro and con proponents on Debatepedia
An identity summary on Procon

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.

Debatewise
Argumentrix

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.

One notable exception
Debategraph

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.

Les bonnes idées de Procon
A glossary
A list of a debate's proponents
A historic timeline
A "Did you know?" page

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 Creative Commons licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.

Overall Review

	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
Wikidébats	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Kialo	x		x	x				x
Hyperdébat	x		x	x		x	x		x	x
DebateGraph	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x
Proversi	x	x	x		x	x	x
Debatepedia		x			x	x		x	x	x
Wikidebate	x		x	x						x
Idebate		x	x						x
Debatewise	x	x	x		x				x
Riyarchy		x	x	x
Argüman			x	x
Procon						x			x
Argumentrix		x	x		x		x		x	x

Learn more about these websites

Name	Self-description	Year of launch	Current status
Wikidébats	“L'encyclopédie des débats”	2016	Active
Kialo	"A debate platform powered by reason"	2017	Active
Hyperdébat	“Débattre avec méthode”	2002	Available for reading only since January 2017
DebateGraph	"An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought"	2008	Active
Proversi	“Une plateforme web de débat public”^[1]	2015	Active
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
Wikidebate	"A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm"	2016	Active
Idebate	"Debatabase"	2011	Active
Debatewise		2007	No longer updated
Riyarchy	"A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute"	2012	Closed in 2016
Argüman	“Une plateforme d’argumentation”	2015	Active
Procon	"Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues"	2004	Active
Argumentrix	"A wiki of claims and rebuttals"	2011	Not updated since 2013

Your comments

More about Wikidebates

References

↑ "Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"

[1] "Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"

[1]