While Standard Deontic Logic categorizes normative statuses as obligatory, forbidden, and optional, it struggles with conflicting obligations – situations where multiple obligations cannot be simultaneously satisfied. One promising approach to address such conflicts involves representing norms as soft constraints, where constraints can be relaxed if they conflict. To explain preemption in soft-constraint norms, Derivative State Argumentation framework (DSA-framework) has been proposed. However, it primarily addresses obligatory and forbidden consequences, leaving optional consequences and conflicting obligations underexamined. To extend DSA framework’s explainability, this paper examines Dung’s argumentation semantics of DSA-framework in relation to normative statuses and conflicting obligation. Through this examination, we propose a classification of arguments in DSA-framework into three groups to explain why obligations are conflicting. In addition, we develop heuristics to revise constraint hierarchies to resolve conflicting obligations by prioritizing constraints associated with the corresponding group of arguments.