  The notion of stability in a structured argumentation setup characterizes
situations where the acceptance status associated with a given literal will not
be impacted by any future evolution of this setup. In this paper, we abstract
away from the logical structure of arguments, and we transpose this notion of
stability to the context of Dungean argumentation frameworks. In particular, we
show how this problem can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete
AFs. Then we provide preliminary complexity results for stability under four
prominent semantics, in the case of both credulous and skeptical reasoning.
Finally, we illustrate to what extent this notion can be useful with an
application to argument-based negotiation.
