The aim of this paper is to study how preferences, which are used to model intrinsic strengths of arguments, can be used in argumentation. We show that they play two roles: i) to repair the attack relation between arguments, and ii) to refine the evaluation of arguments. Then, we point out that the existing approaches for preference-based argumentation model only the first role. They may also return non conflict-free extensions. We propose a general framework that overcomes those limitations.