methodatlas
Session Builder

Plan my session

Plan a concrete work block with agenda, roles, preparation, and a copyable result artifact.

Method session1-3 hWorkshop or asyncArgument Map

Session: Argument Mapping

The plan translates the method into a concrete facilitated work block. Your inputs flow directly into the session brief and work artifact.

Derived automatically

Method session with 1-8. The plan uses the existing method logic and the runsheet.

Runsheet
Participation logic
Team round, shared work and alignment

Use the session for shared understanding. Contributions are collected visibly, assumptions are aligned, and open differences remain traceable in the artifact.

Outcome logic
Finish artifact

The session works directly toward Argument Map. After the session, the artifact should be shareable, reviewable, or reusable.

  1. 1

    Phase 1: Question and main thesis

    10-15 min

    Formulate the central question as one sentence. Put the main thesis (for example, 'We should do X') at the top of the board. Put the antithesis explicitly opposite it. Hint: If the main thesis has no antithesis, the decision is trivial and Argument Mapping is unnecessary.

    FacilitatorArgument Map
  2. 2

    Phase 2: Collect pro and contra arguments

    30-45 min

    Go around the room and collect reasons for and against the main thesis. One sentence per argument, in the schema 'X, because Y'. Put them on sticky notes, visibly assigned. Hint: Split arguments that contain several claims into separate statements. Otherwise you cannot tell which part is sound.

    FacilitatorEvidence Gaps
  3. 3

    Phase 3: Add evidence

    20-30 min

    Add evidence stickers to each argument: source, data point, study, or experience report. If no evidence is available, add an assumptions sticker with 'to be checked'. Hint: An assumptions sticker is not a flaw; it is a signal that research is needed. If nobody needs assumptions stickers, they probably have not checked carefully enough.

    FacilitatorDecision Rationale
  4. 4

    Phase 4: Mark weaknesses and gaps

    15-20 min

    Walk through the map together. Mark arguments without evidence, with weak evidence, or with strong counterarguments. Create a list of open research questions. Hint: Weak spots are often not 'wrong' but 'not decided'. Writing them down clearly as learning topics saves later debates.

    FacilitatorArgument Map
  5. 5

    Phase 5: Decision recommendation

    10-15 min

    Based on the map, formulate a recommendation or hand over the decision prep status. Record the rationale for each recommendation in the decision log. Hint: If the map shows more assumptions stickers than evidence, the recommendation is 'research first'. Avoid pseudo-decisions.

    OwnerEvidence Gaps
  6. 6

    Publish artifact

    10 min

    Check the artifact for completeness, define location, set version or status, and name review recipients.

    OwnerArgument Map
Usable artifact

Session Brief

For invitations, boards, tickets, PR descriptions, or workshop notes.

session-brief.md

Session Brief: Argument Mapping

Goal

Artifact: Argument Map

Working Question

Which claim is supported by which reasons and evidence, where are the counterarguments, and which gaps must be closed before a decision is made?

Context

Central decision question; previous discussion notes or memos; available data sources and studies; definition of 'evidence' (what counts: source, data, experience).

Setup

  • Format: Method session
  • Duration: 1-3 h
  • Mode: Workshop or async
  • Participants: One facilitator who separates claims sharply and asks for evidence; one to eight participants with subject-matter knowledge; one scribe who recreates the map digitally.
  • Owner: One facilitator who separates claims sharply and asks for evidence
  • Participation mode: Team round, shared work and alignment
  • Outcome logic: Finish artifact

Participation Logic

Use the session for shared understanding. Contributions are collected visibly, assumptions are aligned, and open differences remain traceable in the artifact.

Outcome Logic

The session works directly toward Argument Map. After the session, the artifact should be shareable, reviewable, or reusable.

Input

Whiteboard or Miro board with a three-column structure (claim, reasons, evidence); sticky notes in three colors (thesis, pro, contra); arrows/markers; timer; shared sources for evidence.

Preparation

Mark the three columns on the board. Stick an example row for pro/con/evidence. State the rule: every claim is supported by at least one reason, and every reason needs either evidence or an assumptions sticker.

Agenda

  1. Phase 1: Question and main thesis (10-15 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Formulate the central question as one sentence. Put the main thesis (for example, 'We should do X') at the top of the board. Put the antithesis explicitly opposite it. Hint: If the main thesis has no antithesis, the decision is trivial and Argument Mapping is unnecessary. Output: Argument Map

  2. Phase 2: Collect pro and contra arguments (30-45 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Go around the room and collect reasons for and against the main thesis. One sentence per argument, in the schema 'X, because Y'. Put them on sticky notes, visibly assigned. Hint: Split arguments that contain several claims into separate statements. Otherwise you cannot tell which part is sound. Output: Evidence Gaps

  3. Phase 3: Add evidence (20-30 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Add evidence stickers to each argument: source, data point, study, or experience report. If no evidence is available, add an assumptions sticker with 'to be checked'. Hint: An assumptions sticker is not a flaw; it is a signal that research is needed. If nobody needs assumptions stickers, they probably have not checked carefully enough. Output: Decision Rationale

  4. Phase 4: Mark weaknesses and gaps (15-20 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Walk through the map together. Mark arguments without evidence, with weak evidence, or with strong counterarguments. Create a list of open research questions. Hint: Weak spots are often not 'wrong' but 'not decided'. Writing them down clearly as learning topics saves later debates. Output: Argument Map

  5. Phase 5: Decision recommendation (10-15 min) Owner: Owner Action: Based on the map, formulate a recommendation or hand over the decision prep status. Record the rationale for each recommendation in the decision log. Hint: If the map shows more assumptions stickers than evidence, the recommendation is 'research first'. Avoid pseudo-decisions. Output: Evidence Gaps

  6. Publish artifact (10 min) Owner: Owner Action: Check the artifact for completeness, define location, set version or status, and name review recipients. Output: Argument Map

Closeout

  • Update result artifact: Argument Map
  • Define location, version, and review recipients.
  • Define owner, next step, and review date.
Usable artifact

Work artifact

Pre-filled starting point based on the matching template.

work-artifact.md

Argument Map: Argument Mapping

Working Question

Which claim is supported by which reasons and evidence, where are the counterarguments, and which gaps must be closed before a decision is made?

Context

Central decision question; previous discussion notes or memos; available data sources and studies; definition of 'evidence' (what counts: source, data, experience).

Participants

  • Owner: One facilitator who separates claims sharply and asks for evidence
  • Participants: One facilitator who separates claims sharply and asks for evidence; one to eight participants with subject-matter knowledge; one scribe who recreates the map digitally.

Input

Whiteboard or Miro board with a three-column structure (claim, reasons, evidence); sticky notes in three colors (thesis, pro, contra); arrows/markers; timer; shared sources for evidence.

Template

Argument Mapping Canvas

Context

What is this method used for?

Core question

Which question should be answered at the end?

Input

Which data, observations, or materials are available?

Working area

  • Area 1:
  • Area 2:
  • Area 3:
  • Relationships / patterns:

Output artifacts

  • Argument Map:
  • Evidence Gaps:
  • Decision Rationale:

Open questions

  • ...

Next step

Owner, date, success signal.

Completion Check

  • Argument Map is complete enough for review:
  • Location:
  • Version / status:
  • Review by:
  • Next step:

Next Step

  • Review result
  • Mark open questions
  • Schedule review or decision
Template base

Argument Mapping Working Template

View templateCompact working template for Argument Mapping with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.
canvas

argument-mapping-working-template.md

Compact working template for Argument Mapping with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.

Argument Mapping Canvas

Context

What is this method used for?

Core question

Which question should be answered at the end?

Input

Which data, observations, or materials are available?

Working area

  • Area 1:
  • Area 2:
  • Area 3:
  • Relationships / patterns:

Output artifacts

  • Argument Map:
  • Evidence Gaps:
  • Decision Rationale:

Open questions

  • ...

Next step

Owner, date, success signal.

Ready to use when
  • Working question, owner, and target artifact are visible.
  • The result fits Argument Map.
  • One map per question with date. When new evidence or arguments appear, add an update section at the end; do not delete old arguments, mark them as 'rebutted' or 'outdated'.
  • Open questions are noted as follow-ups.
  • The next review or decision point is scheduled.
ProfileRunsheet