I've experimented with constructing arguments as actual DAGs before here: http://concludia.org/ If you are strict about logical force and premises leading to lemmas and conclusions, I think it works pretty well.
There's a lamport paper lying around somewhere that also talks about representing arguments and proofs as DAGs.
I think it would be fun to include a framework where you could use logical fallacies to support common arguments that include them and ask people who support those arguments to replace them with non-fallacious arguments as a more nuanced way of debating and getting around that all criticism of popular arguments is somehow a strawman.
Comments
I've experimented with constructing arguments as actual DAGs before here: http://concludia.org/ If you are strict about logical force and premises leading to lemmas and conclusions, I think it works pretty well.
There's a lamport paper lying around somewhere that also talks about representing arguments and proofs as DAGs.
I think it would be fun to include a framework where you could use logical fallacies to support common arguments that include them and ask people who support those arguments to replace them with non-fallacious arguments as a more nuanced way of debating and getting around that all criticism of popular arguments is somehow a strawman.