This article examines the relationship between advertising and argumentation. If one follows the relevant definitions of argumentation, it is usually characterized as a rational method of securing claims to validity. Such protective acts only become necessary in case validity claims are questioned. Since advertising is in its essence not dialogical and its function is not grounded in protecting validity claims, it hardly seems to be accessible to argumentation-analytical categories. Contrary to such a view, it shall be argued in this paper that a pragmatically-oriented conception of argumentation can widen the view to consider advertising as a special form of conclusive speech acts, which utilizes argumentation schemes of everyday language. The orientation towards such topoi allows advertising formulations to benefit from this generally accepted plausibility. Consequently this orientation opens up new ways of increasing acceptance for the claims of validity that are often only implicit in advertising texts.