# Argument Map Participants gather verifiable facts, silently draft supporting and opposing claims, and take turns posting single arguments. They prune duplicates, sort the points under For and Against, and organize them into clear thematic clusters. **Time:** 60 minutes. Gamestorming suggests 1 to 3 hours for large public consultations. This UWT run sheet specifies a focused 60-minute session for teams. **People:** 4 to 24. Solo generation followed by whole-group turn-taking and collaborative board clustering. ## Choose this exercise **Purpose:** Map all arguments surrounding a contested proposal before group debate begins. **Use it when:** Use when a team faces a polar decision or controversial policy and needs a complete, visible inventory of reasons before choosing an outcome. **Skip it when:** Skip when the core decision is already made, when an open exploratory brainstorm is needed rather than an evaluation of a specific proposition, or when basic shared facts do not yet exist. ## Materials and tools - 2 large flip chart pads or 1 wide whiteboard divided into two zones - 1 pad of 3x3 inch sticky notes per participant - 1 fine-point black marker per participant - Scratch paper for individual notes - Blue or black whiteboard dry-erase markers ## Before participants arrive 1. Post the focal proposition clearly at the top of the room in large block letters (for example: 'Proposal: Shift client intake entirely to self-service by Q3'). 2. Set up two adjacent boards or flip charts: label the left board 'FOR' and the right board 'AGAINST'. 3. Place sticky notes, scratch paper, and pens at each seat. ## Say this to open Today we are mapping every argument for and against our central proposal before we discuss them. Debates often stall because people argue before seeing the full picture. Our goal is not to win an argument right now. Our goal is to make a complete, clean inventory of every valid claim on both sides. ## How to run it ### 1. Establish shared facts (10 minutes) State the central proposition. Invite participants to share only verifiable data, metrics, or factual realities relevant to the issue. Facilitator records these on a side chart marked 'Known Facts'. Intervene immediately if someone shares an opinion or prediction rather than a verifiable fact. ### 2. Dump arguments silently (10 minutes) Participants work individually in complete silence. Direct them to write down every possible argument they can see, both supporting and opposing the proposition. Each argument goes on a separate sticky note with short, crisp wording (3 to 7 words). Participants cross off duplicate thoughts on their own pads as they write. ### 3. Share and prune in rounds (20 minutes) Go around the room round-robin. Each person reads exactly one argument from their notes, stating whether it belongs under FOR or AGAINST, and hands or sticks it onto that board. Anyone who holds the exact same argument immediately tears up or sets aside their duplicate note. If a person has no new points left, they say 'Pass.' Continue rounds until every participant has passed. ### 4. Cluster into themes and debrief (20 minutes) Facilitator and group step up to the boards. Group related notes together under clear theme headers (such as Cost, Staff Capacity, Client Experience, Technical Risk). Read through the clustered map. Dedicate the final 5 minutes to debriefing the balance of arguments. ## Debrief questions - Looking at the entire board, which side holds stronger factual support rather than speculative fear? - What missing perspectives or blind spots became visible once we clustered the claims? - Which arguments need further data before this decision can be resolved? **Finished output:** A physical or digital two-column visual map displaying all unique supporting and opposing arguments grouped into named thematic clusters. ## Remote Use a shared virtual board with two columns: FOR and AGAINST. Keep a separate text block for Known Facts. During silent writing, participants draft notes in a private work area. During round-robin turns, each person pastes one note into the appropriate column while others delete duplicates from their private zones. ## Hybrid Appoint a co-facilitator as a dedicated board scribe for remote participants. Remote contributors post digital notes or read them aloud during the round-robin, and the scribe writes and places physical notes on the room boards so all attendees see the same visual map. ## Access and participation choices - Participants can pass on any round without explanation and without forfeiting their turn in the next cycle. - Offer an option to submit written arguments on sticky notes directly to the facilitator before step 3 if speaking aloud presents a barrier. ## If the session gets stuck **Participants begin debating or rebutting an argument as soon as it is posted.** Cut the debate off immediately. Remind the group that the objective is complete mapping, not evaluating validity yet. Every reason heard by a participant deserves capture on the board. **Notes contain vague complaints or multi-sentence paragraphs.** Ask the author: 'What is the single underlying claim here in five words?' Re-write the note crisply before placing it on the board. ## Terms used here - Infoglut: An overwhelming volume of uncatalogued facts and opinions that obscures clear decision-making. - Pruning: Removing identical or duplicate statements immediately so the map stays readable. ## Sources and adaptation Observed in Gamestorming, which notes the method was originally conceived by De Argumentenfabriek. Retained Gamestorming's core sequence: establishing facts, silent individual generation, round-robin posting with immediate duplicate pruning, strict separation into For/Against, and thematic clustering. Adjusted from an open-ended 1 to 3 hour format to a crisp, structured 60-minute agenda with specific step timings and debrief prompts. [Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/argument-map) [Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/argument-map/) Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/argument-map/