from an argumentation framework, Dung introduces the notion of *conflict-free*, *acceptable*, and *admissible* sets.

 [@dung1995acceptability]

-   **Conflict-free.** A set of arguments $S$ is *conflict-free* iff there are no arguments $a, b$ in $S$ such that $a$ attacks $b$.

-   **Acceptable.** Given an argumentation framework $AR$, an argument $a \in AR$ is *acceptable* w.r.t. an argument set $S$ iff for each argument $b \in AR$: if $b$ attacks $a$, then $b$ is attacked by $S$.

-   **Admissible.** A conflict-free set of arguments $S$ is *admissible* iff each argument in $S$ is acceptable with regards to $S$.

Based on these concepts, Dung (and others) define different *semantics* for resolving argumentation frameworks.

 [@dung1995acceptability]\[semantics-def\] An argumentation semantics $\sigma$ is a function that takes an argumentation framework $AF = (AR, attacks)$ and returns a set of sets of arguments denoted by $\sigma(AF)$. $$\begin{aligned}
    \sigma: {\cal AF} \rightarrow 2^{2^{AR}},\end{aligned}$$ with ${\cal AF}$ denoting the set of all possible argumentation frameworks. Each set of $\sigma(AF)$ is called a $\sigma$-extension.

Below, we provide an overview of semantics/extensions that are commonly applied and analyzed by the formal argumentation community. In the context of this paper, we use the colloquial umbrella term *well-established semantics* to refer to the semantics introduced 