[HN Gopher] Argdown: A simple syntax for complex argumentation
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Argdown: A simple syntax for complex argumentation
        
       Author : stareatgoats
       Score  : 80 points
       Date   : 2023-01-18 16:19 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (github.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
        
       | gkfasdfasdf wrote:
       | Am I the only one that thought this was a universal format for
       | describing CLI arguments?
        
         | turboponyy wrote:
         | I figured the same.
        
         | jszymborski wrote:
         | I certainly thought that.
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | I've never seen "argumentation" used in that context.
        
         | johnmaguire wrote:
         | I've long wished I could "declare" my CLI arguments in a
         | Markdown-like syntax (e.g. using `[]` and `<>` to denote
         | optional vs. required arguments) and have some library figure
         | it all out for me.
        
           | Flimm wrote:
           | You're in for a treat: that library already exists and has
           | been ported to multiple programming languages:
           | 
           | http://docopt.org
        
             | gkfasdfasdf wrote:
             | Wow thanks, that does look interesting!
        
           | lgas wrote:
           | https://docopt.org/ may be of interest.
        
           | AndrewDucker wrote:
           | PowerShell does exactly that for its scripts.
           | 
           | And then uses those definitions for autocomplete, validation,
           | etc.
        
         | RustyRussell wrote:
         | No, I clicked through and got confused, came here for
         | enlightenment. Thanks!
        
       | a9h74j wrote:
       | I haven't gone beyond reading the page, but the intent matches my
       | intuition that we need tools for better following (and agreeing
       | upon?) good "geometries" for arguments.
        
         | 082349872349872 wrote:
         | When corporate email threads start getting lengthy, I like to
         | flow* them. Too often it's not even a question of premises and
         | conclusions, but rather I find technical threads get hung up on
         | quibbling minor issues, while failing to engage ("arguing past
         | each other") wrt fairly major points.
         | 
         | * eg https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Big-
         | Quest...
        
         | spockz wrote:
         | Same here. I call it "structured reasoning" in my mind.
         | 
         | I have been eyeballing https://www.kialo.com/ but I'm very
         | hesitant to use it for company decisions.
        
       | rco8786 wrote:
       | This is dying for some sort of example on the front page. I
       | clicked around trying to figure out what it was, assuming it was
       | some sort of argument syntax for CLI tools.
        
         | gpuhacker wrote:
         | Same here, I read the Readme twice and was still puzzled what
         | this is for.
        
         | mulmen wrote:
         | Did you try clicking on examples/, docs, or on the online
         | sandbox?
        
           | civopsec wrote:
           | Can't say I find the examples motivating. Just tells me more
           | about the author's tastes and proclivities than the utility
           | of all this markup.
        
           | rco8786 wrote:
           | Yes, and I eventually figured it out. That's why I am saying
           | it would be nice if it were on the front page, so people
           | don't have to click around.
        
       | tunesmith wrote:
       | Interesting. I've been working on a side project that combines
       | argument mapping with actual syntax checking - meaning that if an
       | argument's conclusion is purported to be "proven" via the
       | sufficiency of its premises and sub premises, then a counterpoint
       | further down in the graph will notify the conclusion that its
       | truth value is now in doubt. I wonder if it could use argdown as
       | an input method.
        
         | djokkataja wrote:
         | That sounds interesting; the weakness of the examples provided
         | with Argdown is that they come to a conclusion, but they don't
         | indicate _why_ that conclusion was chosen over the other
         | option, and it 's not clear that the conclusions actually
         | address everything.
        
         | mistermann wrote:
         | Are you working on this out in the open? I'd be very interested
         | to see what it looks like and where you're planning to go with
         | it.
        
       | stareatgoats wrote:
       | I've been scouring the web for things like this for a while; open
       | source tools that can represent an argument process in a visual
       | manner reminiscent of a workflow. There is obviously kialo.com,
       | but it doesn't quite tick all the boxes IMO. Interest in this
       | kind of thing additionally seems to have died out a few years
       | back. Are we waiting for an AI solution perhaps?
       | 
       | In the meantime Argdown perhaps is the closest thing available.
        
       | nepger21 wrote:
       | For anybody wondering, argumentation here is this:
       | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_framework I found
       | the idea quite interesting within my master's program during AI
       | class. My prof. research group was trying to use this to detect
       | fake news.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-18 23:00 UTC)