Replacing Trident

Another method for mapping arguments is to use hypertext to allow 'drilling down' in to arguments; this is the method used to illustrate arguments for and against replacing Trident, the United Kingdom's nuclear deterent.

The disadvantage of using this method is that it is difficult to get an idea of the overall structure of the argument, and to therefore analyse it holistically. Each individual argument may be criticised or supported, but the 'map' is hidden from view. Unlike the more rigourous structure imposed by software like Rationale, there is a lot of scope for missing suppressed premises or drawing unwarranted conclusions.

On the other hand, this might be a halfway-house between a prose only format and a truly visual map. It has the potential to improve upon, for example, the linear structure of essays, to allow greater depth without detracting from the pithiness of the thesis and supporting points.

An alternative implementation could even use a wiki format.

clipped from homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk

Arguments for this: France must not be the only European nuclear power Nuclear weapons give the UK an advantage in conventional wars Nuclear weapons give the UK international status Nuclear weapons prevent war Trident creates jobs Trident prevents nuclear attacks on the UK

Arguments against this: Money spent on Trident would be better spent on development Replacing Trident increases the danger faced by the UK Replacing Trident is against international law Trident is immoral Trident is too terrible ever to be used