Argumentation is a promising approach for reasoning with inconsistent information. Starting from a knowledge base encoded in a logical language, an argumentation system defines arguments and attacks between them using the consequence operator associated with the language. Finally, it uses a semantics for evaluating the arguments. The plausible conclusions to be drawn from the knowledge base are those supported by “good” arguments. In this paper, we discuss two families of such systems: the family using extension semantics and the one using ranking semantics. We discuss the outcomes of both families and compare them.