Can argumentation discover that statements are justified? Or can justification of statements originate in argumentation? In the paper it is argued that as far as epistemic justification is concerned, both questions have to be answered in the negative. Because of the regress problem, argumentation cannot reveal justification. And because of the fallacy of begging the question, argumentation cannot produce justification. Consequently, it is utterly wrong to claim that the purpose of argumentation is to justify statements that are being argued for.