Ask HN: Using plaintext argument maps to improve critical thinking?

A year ago I came across the concept of argument maps and was intrigued by a meta-study showing that college students who used argument maps as part of philosophy courses improved scores on critical thinking tests by roughly one standard deviation over the course of a semester. Most representations of them I've found online have a big tree structure that takes up lots of space, but I realized I could use them in an indented bulleted list since that's also a tree structure. For example:

Plaintext argument maps are superior to just bullet points

  - Support: prefixing each bullet's content with "support" or "oppose"
    lets you easily see the logical relationships between concepts
  - Support: since this just uses plaintext, it works anywhere you can
    type
  - Support: if you have to use "support" or "oppose" for each bulleted
    item, then you naturally don't bother listing things that aren't
    relevant, because they won't support or oppose
    - Support: and if you're sure that something's relevant, but it both
      supports and opposes, then clearly you need to either start with a
      more fundamental assertion or break down the mixed support/oppose
      item into separate concepts
  - Oppose: writing "support" and "oppose" for everything requires more
    writing
    - Oppose: you can abbreviate them as "S" and "O" if you're not
      illustrating the concept
      - Support: This is kind of hard to read... single capital letters
        at the start of lines stand out more from the prose
  - Oppose: if I want to share my notes with people and I use this goofy
    notation, I'll have to explain it to them and I'll feel like a huge
    dork
    - Support: this is accurate, it's pretty embarrassing