Argumentation systems are the computational models of persuasion and dispute, they aim to reflect human argumentation by using conflicting information to construct and analyse arguments. These systems are also able to weigh, compare, or evaluate arguments. It can be said that argumentation systems are new kind of decision support systems, as they can help in decision making in a different way: constructing arguments, visualizing argument graphs, critically evaluating arguments using a formal model. Argumentation systems can be used in real human dispute, people can reconstruct arguments from natural language texts with the help of argument diagrams and schemes, and then evaluate them using proof standards. These solutions can be useful for Online Dispute Resolution, eDemocracy, business discussions, learning.
This thesis introduces the concepts of an argumentation system, like argumentation framework, proof standards, dialogues, argumentation schemes, and explain the steps of evaluating arguments. By showing possible applications of argumentation systems, this thesis illustrates conceivable usage of these systems. I examine the relationship between decision support systems and argumentation systems, and represent the differences in an example. My goal is to develop an argumentation system, that uses Semantic Web technologies to construct and evaluate arguments. This model shows how elements of Semantic Web like URI (Uniform Resource Identifier), RDF (Resource Description Framework), OWL (Web Ontology Language), SWRL (Semantic Web Rule Language) can be used in building augmentation system. This thesis outline how to create an argumentation model of a real-world problem and how to model it in this system. I demonstrate evaluating arguments in the developed system and i show how it supports analysis of dispute.