Bipolar Argumentation for Supporting Decisions in Software Design

We present ongoing work on the definition of an argumentation framework to support technology selection in software architecture using bipolar argumentation. Our approach models standard design options, such as the choice of programming languages, libraries, and their configurations, as arguments, and captures their relations via attack and support among arguments. The framework enables reasoning under conflicting technical constraints and stake-holder goals, such as energy efficiency, security, and open source compliance. We formalize different kinds of argument interaction, including incompatibilities, goal-driven conflicts, and dependencies. By leveraging argumentation semantics, we derive rational and explainable design decisions based on user-defined criteria.