Abstract
We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation fornon-elementary arguments such as: X argues against Ys sincerity with the factthat Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting otherfacts which would not have validated C. Argumentation involving such argumentsrequires us to potentially consider an argument as a coherent block ofargumentation, i.e. an argument may itself be an argumentation. In this work,we formulate block argumentation as a specific instance of Dung-style bipolarabstract argumentation with the dual nature of arguments. We consider internalconsistency of an argument(ation) under a set of constraints, of graphical(syntactic) and of semantic nature, and formulate acceptability semantics inrelation to them. We discover that classical acceptability semantics do not ingeneral hold good with the constraints. In particular, acceptability ofunattacked arguments is not always warranted. Further, there may not be aunique minimal member in complete semantics, thus sceptic (grounded) semanticsmay not be its subset. To retain set-theoretically minimal semantics as asubset of complete semantics, we define semi-grounded semantics. Throughcomparisons, we show how the concept of block argumentation may furthergeneralise structured argumentation.