Political debates aren't just noise. Each one has a structure — positions that support, counter and sometimes bridge across divides. These maps make that structure visible.
Each map lays out every significant position in a policy debate and shows how they relate — which arguments support each other, which ones push back, and which bridge across divides. Select a persona to see the debate through a different lens.
Every significant position in the debate is a node. Blue nodes favour action, orange nodes resist it, gold nodes sit between the two — arguments that draw support from both sides.
Choose a persona and the map reshapes. Each persona has affinities to different value frames — a retired teacher and a tech founder will light up very different parts of the same debate.
Some arguments resonate with people who disagree on almost everything else. The map highlights these bridging arguments — not because they're right, but because they're where conversation is still possible.
We don't prescribe what you should get from these maps. But here's what you could use them for.
Before writing a briefing, preparing for a panel, or heading into a stakeholder meeting — see the full landscape of what people actually argue about on a topic, not just the positions you already know.
Pick a persona that isn't you. See which arguments glow and which go dark. It's a quick way to stress-test whether your framing lands with people outside your usual audience.
The bridging arguments aren't compromises. They're positions that genuinely resonate across divides. Useful if you're looking for framings that don't require either side to give ground.
The maps show that political debates have shape and structure. Students can see that an issue isn't just 'two sides' — it's a network of interconnected claims with varying strength and reach.
The most interesting arguments aren't the loudest. They're the ones that make people on either side nod.