A General Account of Argumentation with Preferences
  This paper builds on the recent ASPIC+ formalism, to develop a general
framework for argumentation with preferences. We motivate a revised definition
of conflict free sets of arguments, adapt ASPIC+ to accommodate a broader range
of instantiating logics, and show that under some assumptions, the resulting
framework satisfies key properties and rationality postulates. We then show
that the generalised framework accommodates Tarskian logic instantiations
extended with preferences, and then study instantiations of the framework by
classical logic approaches to argumentation. We conclude by arguing that
ASPIC+'s modelling of defeasible inference rules further testifies to the
generality of the framework, and then examine and counter recent critiques of
Dung's framework and its extensions to accommodate preferences.
