Map arguments. Score evidence. Decide with clarity.
ArguCheck turns complex debates into clear, weighted argument trees. Every claim gets a score based on evidence, not popularity. See which side has the stronger case — backed by sources, rated by the community.
Two dimensions of scoring: How true is each argument? How relevant is it to the question? The combination reveals what simple polls and comment threads never can.
Free to browse. No signup required to explore public debates.
For researchers, teams, journalists, students, and critical thinkers.
Not just another opinion platform
ArguCheck replaces gut feeling with structured, evidence-based reasoning.
Beyond simple polls
Polls count votes. ArguCheck weighs arguments. A single well-sourced counter-argument can outweigh a hundred unsupported opinions.
Beyond comment threads
No more scrolling through noise. Arguments are structured as pro/contra trees with scores. The strongest reasoning rises to the top automatically.
Beyond gut feeling
Every argument links to sources. Every connection is rated for relevance. The composite score shows you the evidence-based picture, not the loudest voice.
How it works
1. State a claim
Write a clear, falsifiable statement — or browse existing debates on health, climate, AI, economics, and more.
2. Build the argument tree
Add pro and contra sub-claims. Link sources. Each argument can have its own sub-arguments, forming a deep reasoning graph.
3. Rate and see the score
Rate each claim's truthfulness and each argument's relevance. The algorithm combines everything into a single score from -1 (false) to +1 (true).
Example: Remote work increases overall productivity
A real debate with pro and contra arguments:
Stanford study shows 13% performance increase in a controlled experiment.
Employees save 1–2 hours of commute daily, reducing stress and improving focus.
Spontaneous collaboration and brainstorming suffer without physical proximity.
Junior employees miss mentorship opportunities that require in-person interaction.
Frequently asked questions
- Claims can be private, group-only, or public. Private claims are never visible to anyone else. Group claims require admin approval to join.
- Each user can rate the relevance (0–100%) of any relation between two claims. You can also rate the truthfulness (-2 to +2) of any claim directly. All ratings can be changed at any time.
- Each claim has an author confidence (set at creation) and a truth score (from community ratings). The final score combines direct truth with the influence of pro/contra sub-claims, weighted by their relevance ratings.
- Groups let you share claims with a closed audience. Members request to join and an admin approves. Group claims are invisible to non-members.
- Yes. Use the Link existing claim button on any claim page to search for and connect an existing claim as pro or contra. Circular references are automatically prevented.
- The interface is available in English, German, and Spanish. Claims are written in one language — you can filter by your language or browse all.
- Click the AI button on any claim to discover pro and contra arguments you might have missed. The AI searches for scientific sources and generates structured arguments. You review and select which ones to add. Works with Gemini, GPT, Claude, Groq, or any OpenAI-compatible API.
- Yes. Create a private claim visible only to you. Map out all pros and cons, add sources, and let the scoring algorithm show you which side has stronger evidence. Great for career decisions, purchases, or any complex choice.
- You control visibility for every claim: Private (only you), Group (invite-only team), or Public (open community). Private claims are never visible to anyone else. No emails or real names are exposed — only nicknames.
- Each claim gets a composite score from -1 (false) to +1 (true). It combines two dimensions: truth ratings (-2 to +2) from the community, and the weighted influence of pro/contra sub-arguments rated for relevance (0-100%). A well-sourced argument with high relevance has more impact than an unsupported opinion. The author's initial confidence fades as more people rate.
Is my content private?
How does rating work?
How is the score calculated?
What are groups?
Can I link existing claims?
What languages are supported?
How does the AI argument finder work?
Can I use ArguCheck for personal decisions?
Is my data private?
How is the score calculated?
Key concepts
- Claim
- A debatable proposition, e.g. Remote work increases productivity. Claims can have sub-claims (pro/contra) forming a recursive argumentation graph.
- Relation
- A directed pro or contra connection between two claims. Users rate the strength (relevance) of each relation.
- Pro
- A relation indicating the sub-claim supports the parent claim.
- Contra
- A relation indicating the sub-claim opposes the parent claim.
- Truth Rating
- How true or well-supported is this claim? Rated by the community from 1 (definitely false) to 5 (definitely true).
- Relevance Rating
- How directly does a sub-claim address its parent? Rated by the community from 1 (irrelevant) to 5 (directly relevant).