Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks

Dung’s argumentation framework takes as input two abstract entities: a set of arguments and a binary relation encoding attacks between these arguments. It returns acceptable sets of arguments, called extensions, wrt a given semantics. While the abstract nature of this setting is seen as a great advantage, it induces a big gap with the application that it is used to. This raises some questions about the compatibility of the setting with a logical formalism (i.e., whether it is possible to instantiate it properly from a logical knowledge base), and about the significance of the various semantics in the application context.