Inthispaperwefocusonaparticularkindofweb-basedcollaborativemappingplatformknownasArgumentMappingToolsArgument Mapping Tools (henceforthAMTshenceforth AMTs).AMTsprovideawebAMTs provide a web-baseduserinterfacethatallowsuserstocobased user interface that allows users to co-create,navigateandeditargumentmapsnavigate and edit argument maps.AnargumentmapisarepresentationofreasoninginwhichtheevidentialrelationshipsamongclaimsaremadewhollyexplicitusinggraphicalorothernonAn argument map is a representation of reasoning in which the evidential relationships among claims are made wholly explicit using graphical or other non-verbaltechniquesverbal techniques (vanGeldervan Gelder,2003).TheyaresupposedtobeparticularlysuitedtorepresentcontroversialdebatesbecausetheyallowuserstorepresentcontroversialpointofviewinacoherentstructuresmadeupofalternativepositionsonanissueatstakewiththeirassociatedchainsofprosandconsargumentsThey are supposed to be particularly suited to represent controversial debates because they allow users to represent controversial point of view in a coherent structures made up of alternative positions on an issue at stake with their associated chains of pros and cons arguments.WhiledifferentstudieshaveprovedthatAMTsmayprovideorganizationswithseveraladvantages While different studies have proved that AMTs may provide organizations with several advantages (Skyrme,1998;Novak,1998;Conklin,2003),theyhavenotreceivedwidespreaddiffusionthey have not received widespread diffusion. Possible explanations of the limited success of online argumentation as a collaborative technology involve factors such as the steep learning that average users are required to climb to be proficient with knowledge.Possibleexplanationsofthelimitedsuccessofonlineargumentationasacollaborativetechnologyinvolvefactorssuchasthesteeplearningthataverageusersarerequiredtoclimbtobeproficientwithknowledge