Traditionally, in the argumentation theory literature structured arguments are constructed from rules interpretations aiming to build well-supported deductive evidence. Different from other approaches, we emphasize the role of investigating general frameworks that can also provide a consistent and well-defined justification for a conclusion that cannot be inferred and there is certainty about it, which we call here NAF-arguments, which have been less explored in the formal argumentation theory, despite its potential use in practical applications for building nuanced well-structured explanations and justifications. This article introduces the so-called semantic argumentation guaranteeing well-known principles for quality in structured argumentation, and with the ability to generate two types of arguments, those where the conclusion atoms are semantically interpreted as true, and those where the conclusion is assumed to be false, we call them here semantic and NAF-arguments respectively. 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. Additionally, we introduce a method for building such arguments using the program’s strata through partial interpretations. We implement our framework named semantic argumentation solver available open source.