Several systems were developed for supporting public persuasion dialogs where two agents with conflicting opinions try to convince an audience. For computing the outcomes of dialogs, these systems use (abstract or structured) argumentation systems that were initially developed for nonmonotonic reasoning. Despite the increasing number of such systems, there are almost no work on high level properties they should satisfy. This paper is a first attempt for defining postulates that guide the well-definition of dialog systems and that allow their comparison. We propose six basic postulates (including e.g. the finiteness of generated dialogs). We then show that this set of postulates is incompatible with those proposed for argumentation systems devoted for nonmonotonic reasoning. This incompatibility confirms the differences between persuading and reasoning. It also suggests that reasoning systems are not suitable for computing the outcomes of dialogs.