  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.
