Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks

We suggest a so-called 'robust' semantics for a model of argumentation which represents arguments and their interactions, called 'argumentation frameworks'. We study a variety of additional definitions of acceptability of arguments; we explore the properties of these definitions; we describe their interrelationships: e.g. robust models can be characterized using the minimal (well-founded) models of a meta-framework. The various definitions of acceptability of argument sets can all deal with contradiction within an argumentation framework.