{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023952095808383235, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.972222222222222, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coalitions of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks

Bipolar argumentation frameworks enable to represent two kinds of interaction between arguments: support and conflict. In this paper, we turn a bipolar argumentation framework into a “meta-argumentation” framework where conflicts occur between sets of arguments, characterized as coalitions of supporting arguments. So, Dung’s well-known semantics can be used on this metaargumentation framework in order to select the acceptable arguments.