Current logic-based handling of arguments has mainly focused on explanation-oriented purposes in presence of inconsistency, so only one type of argument has been considered. Several argumentation frameworks have then been proposed for generating and evaluating such arguments. However, recent works on argumentation-based negotiation have emphasized different other types of arguments such as Ihreats, rewards, appeals. The purpose of this paper is to provide a logical setting which encompasses the classical argumentation-based framework and handles the new types of arguments. More precisely, we give the logical definitions of these arguments and their weighting systems. Ibese detinitions take into account that negotiation dialogues involve not only agents' beliefs (of varions strengths), but also their goals (having maybe différent priorities), as well as the beliefs on the goals of other agents. In other words, from the différent belief and goal bases maîntained by agents, all the possible threats, rewards, explanations, appeals which are associated with them can be generated.