In this article, we introduce a general framework for structured argumentation providing consistent and well-defined justification for conclusions that can and cannot be inferred and there is certainty about them, which we call semantic and NAF-arguments, respectively. We propose the so-called semantic argumentation guaranteeing well-known principles for quality in structured argumentation, with the ability to generate semantic and NAF-arguments, those where the conclusion atoms are semantically interpreted as true, and those where the conclusion is assumed to be false. This framework is defined on the set of all logic programs in terms of rewriting systems based on a confluent set of transformation rules, the so-called Confluent Logic Programming Systems, making this approach a general framework. We implement our framework named semantic argumentation solver available open source.
Extended abstract.