This paper maps out the relation between different approaches for handling preferences in argumentation with strict rules and defeasible assumptions by offering translations between them. The systems we compare are: non-prioritized defeats, preference-based defeats, and preference-based defeats extended with reverse defeat. We prove that these translations preserve the consequences of the respective systems under different semantics. * The research of the authors was supported by a Sofja Kovalevkaja award of the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation, funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research. A slightly updated version of the paper is forthcoming in the proceedings of AI 3 .