In his seminal paper, Phan Minh Dung (1995) proposed abstract argumentation framework, which models argumentation using directed graphs where structureless arguments are the nodes and attacks among the arguments are the edges. In the following years, many extensions of this framework were introduced. These extensions typically add a certain form of structure to the arguments. This thesis showcases two such extensions -- value-based argumentation framework by Trevor Bench-Capon (2002) and semi-abstract argumentation framework by Esther Anna Corsi and Christian Ferm\"uller (2017). The former introduces a mapping function that links individual arguments to a set of ordered values, enabling a distinction between objectively and subjectively acceptable arguments. The latter links claims of individual arguments to propositional formulae and then applies newly-introduced attack principles in order to make implicit attacks explicit and to enable a definition of a consequence relation that relies on neither the truth values nor the interpretations in the usual sense. The contribution of this thesis is two-fold. Firstly, the new semi-abstract value-based argumentation framework is introduced. This framework maps propositional formulae associated with individual arguments to a set of ordered values. Secondly, a complex moral dilemma is formulated using the original and the value-based argumentation frameworks showcasing the expressivity of these formalisms.

翻译：在其开创性论文中，Phan Minh Dung（1995）提出了抽象论证框架，该框架利用有向图对论证过程建模，其中无结构论点为节点，论证间的攻击关系为边。此后数年间，该框架衍生出多种扩展形式，这些扩展通常为论点添加了特定形式的结构。本文展示其中两种扩展——Trevor Bench-Capon（2002）提出的价值导向论证框架，以及Esther Anna Corsi与Christian Fermüller（2017）提出的半抽象论证框架。前者引入映射函数将各论点关联至有序价值集，从而区分客观可接受论点与主观可接受论点；后者将各论点的论断关联至命题公式，并运用新引入的攻击原则，使隐式攻击显式化，进而定义了一种既不依赖通常意义上的真值也不依赖解释的推论关系。本文贡献体现为两方面：首先，提出新型半抽象价值导向论证框架，该框架将各论点关联的命题公式映射至有序价值集；其次，运用原始论证框架与价值导向论证框架构建复杂道德困境，展示了这些形式化方法的表达能力。