A Principle-Based Analysis of Bipolar Argumentation Semantics

In this paper, we introduce and study seven types of semantics for bipolar argumentation frameworks, each extending Dung's interpretation of attack with a distinct interpretation of support. First, we introduce three types of defence-based semantics by adapting the notions of defence. Second, we examine two types of selection-based semantics that select extensions by counting the number of supports. Third, we analyse two types of traditional reduction-based semantics under deductive and necessary interpretations of support. We provide full analysis of twenty-eight bipolar argumentation semantics and ten principles.