Dung’s theory has become the de facto standard in the field of argumentation-based inference. However, it has been noted that his semantics may yield results that go against our expectations when dealing with controversial arguments. A pair of controversial arguments may belong to the same extension under his semantics, meaning that they can be accepted simultaneously. Several semantics have been proposed to address this issue, including prudent semantics, careful semantics and solid semantics. The common feature of these approaches is that they all refuse to allow a pair of controversial arguments to appear in the same extension. However, in this paper, we argue that the contexts in which controversial arguments arise are highly complex, and therefore we need a new method to handle controversial arguments more flexibly. We propose a new class of argumentation frameworks called “argumentation framework with attitude classification” (ACAF) and show that through this new framework, we can handle controversial arguments appropriately in different contexts. We also find that our new framework provides a new method for handling “defeat cycles” and “self-defeating arguments”.