Extending Social Abstract Argumentation with Votes on Attacks

Social abstract argumentation laid theoretical foundations for future online debating systems with formal backbones and semantics. The advantage of these envisioned new systems is their capability of formally justifying the social outcomes of their debates. Many recent extensions proposed for argumentation in general have addressed the issue that not all attacks between arguments are equal, especially in the eyes of the crowd. This work generalises social abstract argumentation to incorporate voting on attacks, inducing a social notion of attack strengths.