Thanks for letting me know about Kialo.
It takes a pro-cons approach breaking things down into modular claims. What's not enough?
A claim could be A->C
Supported by separate claims: Since A; A->B; B->C, etc?
A claim could be A->C
Supported by separate claims: Since A; A->B; B->C, etc?
And then yes, C can be used to support something else, so you can chain multiple together. Kialo - and really, the whole warrant/claim method of argument-mapping - doesn't have the concept of truth (or sufficiency, or necessity) built into the machinery.
It goes deeper than that, there's a distinction between syntax and semantics (or form and content) - all of these design decisions are driving exactly how the project evolves.