Resumen
In an argumentative dialogue, agents exchange arguments to approve or disapprove a decision alternative. The problem arises when a group of agents with incomplete information needs to reach consensus on the decision. This study proposes a framework for decision-making where the argumentative agents can build the necessary common knowledge to make a decision based on every formula of the exchanged arguments. Each formula receives votes indicating either support or rejection. When a formula receives more supporting votes than rejection ones, that is, it is accepted by the majority, it becomes common knowledge. In this case, there is a consensus about that information, which influences the strength of the argument comprising the formula. The framework for decision-making permits to analyze the arguments related to every decision alternative and rank them based on the strength of the arguments. This framework is an alternative for existing ones based on preferences expressed by numerical values, allowing agents to explain the rationale behind the decisions.