In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When confronted with such situations, we may wish to aggregate individuals' argumentation views on support-relations into a collective view, which is acceptable to the group. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments, but with possibly different support-relations. Using the methodology in social choice theory, we analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules during the aggregation of support-relations.