Debatepoint is not only open-source, but also open-content. Its source-code is open to the public for review, and its content is open for redistribution via the GFDL (like wikipedia). If you wanted to make a complete and exact clone of debatepoint, you can. Not only is truthmapping.com not open-source nor open-content, at the bottom of its about page states "The TruthMapping method is patent pending."

How can you have unbiased debates if you have commercial advertisement built into the system like truthmapping.com does. Debatepoint has no, and will not have any advertising.

Truthmapping.com creates a barrier to entry by being complicated. Why should it be more complicated than support/opppose/comment. Truthmapping hides the opposing arguments and calls them, euphamistically, "critiques". Why hide what they really are? Debatepoint relies on user moderation to weed out any insulting opposition replies.

I don't see on truthmapping.com any form of real consolidation on arguments. All I see is the number of supporting replies. Debatepoint uses a tree of support and oppose replies to accumulate a consensus on the original point. Again, why hide opposing arguments? They are key to the scientific method. (The notion of falsifiability)

While not currently active yet, debatepoint supports stances for points on every user. eg. If there is a point called "Abortion should be legal", then there is also a stance such as "George W. Bush's stance on 'Abortion should be legal'". This should hopefully be helpful in the future for "sideline" formal debates. All points are currently the "consensus" user's stance.

I found this point and debatepoint.org by searching for truthmapping.com. I wasn't really hooked to debatepoint until I found column view. It should be the default view.

How can one be superior when they are really apples and oranges? From their [[web video|http://truthmapping.com/ab out.php] I see that truthmapping allows a user to support their position in detail whereas in debatepoint they simply make a single statement without support.

Truthmapping removes digression by having the topic be the context that you cannot leave. Debatepoint creates trees that allows digression. Apples and oranges.

Truthmapping initially hides the critiques which allows us to examine the argument without input that can sway our judgement. Then if you wish to view the critiques you can view them. Apples and oranges.