Argumentation provides a structured way to model and reason about conflicting opinions, representing and evaluating different viewpoints in a principled manner. In many real-world situations, several internally coherent positions may exist, each supported by a different set of arguments; different argumentation semantics provide alternative ways of reasoning about these positions. Recent work also lets us quantify how much these accepted viewpoints differ from eachother, distinguishing minor disagreements from fundamentally different lines of reasoning.
In this thesis, you will apply argumentation techniques to real-world applications where conflicts and disagreements are prominent. Possible application areas include decision-making, medical treatment choices, online discussions, and inconsistent or conflicting information in databases. The goal is to investigate how argumentation can be used to identify conflicting viewpoints, understand the reasons behind disagreements, and support conflict resolution.