<story><title>Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping</title><url>https://argdown.org/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>stared</author><text>From time to time, I see a tool to present a discussion as a tree with arguments for and against it.&lt;p&gt;Unless it is a school essay, arguments don&amp;#x27;t go that way.&lt;p&gt;It is usually harder to encompass what a node (an atomic fact) is and what a link is (it usually goes beyond &amp;quot;support&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;counter&amp;quot;). Very often, this structure is not a tree. Maybe a DAG with weighted edges, but if it were that straightforward - knowledge graphs would simply work.&lt;p&gt;Instead of rehashing the same tree approach, we should adopt something closer to an LLM-embedding approach - for a given statement, we should have &amp;quot;relevant statements&amp;quot; with an additional dimension if it supports, counters, expands, provides an example, and so on. In this case, it wouldn&amp;#x27;t even be a DAG.</text></comment>
<story><title>Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping</title><url>https://argdown.org/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>davidpfarrell</author><text>Ha I thought it was a tool for managing complex args for command-line tools</text></comment>