Aggregating Bipolar Opinions (With Appendix)
This work addresses the problem of aggregating diverse opinions for parties involved in debates, which is an incremental step in argumentation theory.
This paper introduces a novel method for aggregating Bipolar Argumentation (BA) Frameworks, which are used to express opinions in debates. It leverages recent results from judgement aggregation in Social Choice Theory to prove several preservation results, both positive and negative, for relevant properties of Bipolar Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA).
We introduce a novel method to aggregate Bipolar Argumentation (BA) Frameworks expressing opinions by different parties in debates. We use Bipolar Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) as an all-encompassing formalism for BA under different semantics. By leveraging on recent results on judgement aggregation in Social Choice Theory, we prove several preservation results, both positive and negative, for relevant properties of Bipolar ABA.