  Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-known structured argumentation
formalism, whereby arguments and attacks between them are drawn from rules,
defeasible assumptions and their contraries. A common restriction imposed on
ABA frameworks (ABAFs) is that they are flat, i.e., each of the defeasible
assumptions can only be assumed, but not derived. While it is known that flat
ABAFs can be translated into abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) as
proposed by Dung, no translation exists from general, possibly non-flat ABAFs
into any kind of abstract argumentation formalism. In this paper, we close this
gap and show that bipolar AFs (BAFs) can instantiate general ABAFs. To this end
we develop suitable, novel BAF semantics which borrow from the notion of
deductive support. We investigate basic properties of our BAFs, including
computational complexity, and prove the desired relation to ABAFs under several
semantics. Finally, in order to support computation and explainability, we
propose the notion of dispute trees for our BAF semantics.
