  In this paper, we introduce a formalism for single-agent decision making that
is based on Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks. The formalism can be used to
justify a choice, which is based on the current situation the agent is
involved. Taking advantage of the inference mechanism of the argumentation
formalism, it is possible to consider preference relations and conflicts among
the available alternatives for that reasoning. With this formalization, given a
particular set of evidence, the justified conclusions supported by warranted
arguments will be used by the agent's decision rules to determine which
alternatives will be selected. We also present an algorithm that implements a
choice function based on our formalization. Finally, we complete our
presentation by introducing formal results that relate the proposed framework
with approaches of classical decision theory.
