  In Dung's abstract argumentation, arguments are either acceptable or
unacceptable, given a chosen notion of acceptability. This gives a coarse way
to compare arguments. In this paper, we propose a counting approach for a more
fine-gained assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective
attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. An argument
is more acceptable if the proponent puts forward more number of defenders for
it and the opponent puts forward less number of attackers against it. We show
that our counting model has two well-behaved properties: normalization and
convergence. Then, we define a counting semantics based on this model, and
investigate some general properties of the semantics.
