  In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals
may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in
fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When
confronted with such situations, we may wish to aggregate individuals'
argumentation views on support-relations into a collective view, which is
acceptable to the group. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar
argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and
a set of attacks between arguments, but with possibly different
support-relations. Using the methodology in social choice theory, we analyze
what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved
by aggregation rules during the aggregation of support-relations.
