  We discover a connection between finding subset-maximal repairs for sets of
functional and inclusion dependencies, and computing extensions within
argumentation frameworks (AFs). We study the complexity of the existence of a
repair and deciding whether a given tuple belongs to some (or every) repair, by
simulating the instances of these problems via AFs. We prove that
subset-maximal repairs under functional dependencies correspond to the naive
extensions, which also coincide with the preferred and stable extensions in the
resulting AFs. For inclusion dependencies, one needs a pre-processing step on
the resulting AFs in order for the extensions to coincide. Allowing both types
of dependencies breaks this relationship between extensions, and only preferred
semantics captures the repairs. Finally, we establish that the complexities of
the above decision problems are NP-complete and Pi_2^P-complete, when both
functional and inclusion dependencies are allowed.
