I have seen a few examples of this sort of thing in the past. I think the term they tend to center around is "Argument Mapping" which is a technique that has a

I have seen a few examples of this sort of thing in the past. I think the term they tend to center around is "Argument Mapping" which is a technique that has a loosely-defined set of best practices. Judgments or Lemmas, counterpoints and rebuttals. I also think they tend to be limited because while they display the structure of counterpoints, there isn't any attempt to actually be logical through boolean or causal logic - necessary and sufficient thinking. Here is a youtube video showing an example of justifying a conclusion with actual causal logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9R89tCIM0#t=197 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9R89tCIM0#t=197 The conclusion is trivial (whether I should buy a MBP 15") but the structure is similar to what is discussed downthread here - logical atomism, conclusions being premises for further conclusions, counterpoints, etc. I've been working on my own time on making a web-based tool that has somewhat related features, but it takes time since it requires tracking actual truth states of contentions. If any off-HN discussion has started up from this thread, I'd like to participate.