Featured Argument Maps
Understand polarizing topics by exploring different perspectives across cultures and time periods
Euthanasia Debate for the Terminally Ill - United Kingdom
The United Kingdom should allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life. Specifically, to allow adults aged 18 and over, who have mental capacity, are terminally ill and are in the final six months of their life, to request assistance from a doctor to end their life.
Pro-choice: The Liberty and Right to Choose Abortion
Pregnant women should have the liberty and right to choose to either give birth or have an abortion - in both cases free from state control. The abortion should be permissible for a reasonable time after conception, though what this is may vary from one pro-choice advocate to another.
We are not doomed, we are allergic to plenty (Joan Westenberg Article)
We are not prepared, culturally or psychologically, for a world of plenty. [...] The problem is that abundance terrifies us. It strips away our excuses. It asks what we are for. And most people would rather cling to grievance than face that question.
How It Works
1. Choose Your Topic
Browse our public gallery of argument maps or create your own on any debate that matters to you—from politics to philosophy to workplace decisions.
2. Explore the Connections
Navigate visual networks where each argument supports, attacks, or cites others. See how ideas connect across cultures and history.
3. Find Your Position
Discover where your beliefs fit in the broader landscape. Share your maps to help others understand the full picture too.
Latest Updates NEW
Stay up to date with the latest features and improvements to Controvis
New Mobile-Friendly Card View
We've replaced our graph-based visualisation with a new card-based interface designed to work beautifully on both desktop and mobile devices. The new view makes it easier to focus on one argument at a time and navigate between related arguments.
Note: While we complete this migration, community editing is temporarily disabled. It will be re-enabled once the new interface is fully in place.
Community Editing Open Beta is Now Live
We're excited to announce the open beta of community editing is now available to all users! This allows anyone to contribute to our growing atlas of human disagreement.
Add New Arguments
Create and contribute new arguments to existing maps, expanding the scope of debates with fresh perspectives.
Create Connections
Link arguments together by showing how they support or attack each other, building comprehensive argument networks.
Tag Content
Organize arguments with relevant categories and tags to make them easier to find and understand.
Who We Are
Controvis is a free site created by Dr. Thomas C. King, to map and understand complex debates. We are building a community seeking to document and understand interesting human disagreements—facing head-on the fascinating but complex landscape of controversial topics across history and cultures.
What We Do
We are building an atlas of interesting argument maps that show how positions connect and clash. Our collaborative approach preserves nuance and clarifies complex debates. Everyone is welcome to join this collective effort to build an open atlas of human disagreement.
Who We're For
Citizens navigating polarizing topics, educators, researchers, and anyone seeking to understand their own and others' positions in disagreements beyond their echo chamber.
A Note from Thomas, Creator of Controvis
As the creator of Controvis, I see this as a community project that we'll build together. I'm Thomas C. King, and I hold a PhD in formal logic with over 10 years of experience as a software engineer in industry and academia. Throughout my academic career, I've published papers in top AI conferences and prestigious journals, with my work accumulating around 1,000 citations. One of my papers was referenced in a UK House of Lords report. I've given numerous talks on the subjects of AI, ethics and argumentation, and completed postdoctoral research at Lancaster University and Oxford University.
During my postdoc at Oxford, I researched the intersection of AI and society, where I encountered increasingly polarized views on technology's impact. These experiences—my PhD work in formal logic and my Oxford research on society—have come together to influence this initiative.
I observed that while powerful theoretical tools existed for mapping complex disagreements, what was missing was accessible content and a way to share these maps widely. In a world where debates often become echo chambers of like-minded opinions, this gap seemed particularly important to address collectively. This insight inspired Controvis—an open atlas of human disagreement designed for all of us to understand perspectives beyond our own bubbles and navigate polarizing topics with greater clarity and nuance.
I'm excited to develop this platform together with a community of curious minds. If you're interested in contributing, have ideas to share, or simply want to discuss the project, please connect with me on LinkedIn or send us an email at [email protected]—I'd love to hear from you!
Future Roadmap
We are community-driven, so our plans depend on what the community needs. Here's what we're planning to build next
Collaborative Maps
Work together with other users to build comprehensive argument maps on complex topics.
Version Control
Track changes and roll back edits when needed with full version history.
Search
Find semantically similar arguments and argument maps.
Historical Filtering
Historical snapshots of argument maps
Cultural Filtering
Geographic and social context filters for arguments across cultures
User Position Analysis
Compute which arguments are logically acceptable given selected argument stances
Opinion Analytics
Anonymous data on user opinions around arguments
Expert Curation
Argument maps organized and verified by subject matter experts
Source Analysis
Cross-referencing of arguments across multiple sources to uncover shared ideological positions