  The rule "defeated(X) $\leftarrow$ attacks(Y,X), $\neg$ defeated(Y)" states
that an argument is defeated if it is attacked by an argument that is not
defeated. The rule "win(X) $\leftarrow$ move(X,Y), $\neg$ win(Y)" states that
in a game a position is won if there is a move to a position that is not won.
Both logic rules can be seen as close relatives (even identical twins) and both
rules have been at the center of attention at various times in different
communities: The first rule lies at the core of argumentation frameworks and
has spawned a large family of models and semantics of abstract argumentation.
The second rule has played a key role in the quest to find the "right"
semantics for logic programs with recursion through negation, and has given
rise to the stable and well-founded semantics. Both semantics have been widely
studied by the logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning community. The
second rule has also received much attention by the database and finite model
theory community, e.g., when studying the expressive power of query languages
and fixpoint logics. Although close connections between argumentation
frameworks, logic programming, and dialogue games have been known for a long
time, the overlap and cross-fertilization between the communities appears to be
smaller than one might expect. To this end, we recall some of the key results
from database theory in which the win-move query has played a central role,
e.g., on normal forms and expressive power of query languages. We introduce
some notions that naturally emerge from games and that may provide new
perspectives and research opportunities for argumentation frameworks. We
discuss how solved query evaluation games reveal how- and why-not provenance of
query answers. These techniques can be used to explain how results were derived
via the given query, game, or argumentation framework.
