  Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting
arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics
partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and
non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take
a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if
it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work
\cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called
\emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained assessment to
arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders
based on argument graph and argument game. In this paper, we continue our
previous work by presenting some supplementaries about how to choose the
damaging factor for the counting semantics, and what relationships with some
existing approaches, such as Dung's classical semantics, generic gradual
valuations. Lastly, an axiomatic perspective on the ranking semantics induced
by our counting semantics are presented.
