It is an integral part of the process of discussion that, sooner or later, we inevitably begin to ask for and give reasons. This process can quickly become complex and confusing. Misunderstandings arise all too quickly; we talk at cross-purposes, or we forget what we had originally intended to talk about. Maybe one of the participants in the debate suddenly claims to have given irrefutable reasons for her thesis, while her opponent cannot even follow her argument. Another participant may claim to have discovered a contradiction in her opponent's position while this remains hidden to the opponent herself.

Given the complexity of our global society, especially the possibilities of communication and information on the internet, these problems are increasingly common. Rational filtering, overview, analysis and evaluation of complex debates is becoming more and more time-consuming and is often neglected.

Logical reconstruction using argument maps can help with these tasks, which should be part of every rational discourse. It enables us to see the big picture, to avoid misunderstandings, to check the opponents' justificatory claims, to detect inconsistencies and to establish our own position. For this reason, the method of argument mapping can be employed in many contexts: in philosophy, in science and research in general, in the media, in public debating events, in politics and in economic contexts. As said before, reasoning takes place almost everywhere, and in moste cases it could be more rational.

We hope that Argunet, and especially this introduction to Argunet, will contribute to a more widespread use of the method of argument mapping in science and beyond.