This paper presents a revised version of a framework proposed by Amgoud which computes consistent sets of intentions from a conflicting set of desires and a set of beliefs. That framework enables us to restate the problem of computing intentions in the context of argumentation theory. Indeed, interacting arguments are interpreted as competing plans for achieving some desire, or conflicting plans for achieving different desires. Another important contribution of this paper is to present an ATMS-based proof theory for that framwork. Indeed, we show that the different concepts defined and used by Amgoud can be restated taking advantage of the well-known Assumption-based Truth Maintenance System.