Argument-based reasoning offers promising interaction and computation mechanisms for multi-agent negotiation and deliberation. Arguments in this context are typically statements of beliefs or actions related to agents' subjective values, preferences and so on. Consequences of such arguments can and should be evaluated using various criteria, and therefore it is desirable that semantics supports these criteria as principles for accepting arguments. This article gives an instance of Dung's abstract argumentation framework to deal with Pareto optimality, i.e. a fundamental criterion for social welfare. We show that the instance allows Dung's acceptability semantics to interpret Pareto optimal arguments, without loss of generality. We discuss the prospects of justified Pareto optimal arguments and Pareto optimal extensions
