This paper studies the possibilities and limits of applying a Dung-style argumentation framework in a decision making problem. This study is motivated by the fact that many examples in the literature use this setting for illustrating advantages or drawbacks of Dung’s argumentation framework or one of its enhancements (such as PAFs, VAFs, ADFs, AFRAs). We claim that it is important to clarify the concept of argumentation-based decision making, i.e., to precisely define and consider all its components (e.g. options, arguments, goals). We show that a Dung-style argumentation framework cannot be simply “attached” to a set of options. Indeed, such a construct does not provide a sophisticated decision-making environment. Finally, we discuss the points that must be taken into account if argumentative-based decision making is to reach its full potential.