  An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative
stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair
of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the first attacks the
second. When modelling a group of agents engaged in a debate, we may wish to
aggregate their individual argumentation frameworks to obtain a single such
framework that reflects the consensus of the group. Even when agents disagree
on many details, there may well be high-level agreement on important semantic
properties, such as the acceptability of a given argument. Using techniques
from social choice theory, we analyse under what circumstances such semantic
properties agreed upon by the individual agents can be preserved under
aggregation.
