The phrase "argues this position" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing someone's viewpoint or stance on a particular issue or topic, especially in academic or analytical writing.
Example: "In her article, she argues this position by providing compelling evidence and examples."
Alternatives: "supports this viewpoint" or "defends this stance."
He argued this position in opposing atheists' efforts to remove the word "God" from currency, a ban on prayers at graduation ceremonies and many other secular initiatives.
Scientists like Richard Dawkins, for example, may infer from their scientific understanding of the universe that God does not exist; indeed, one may argue this position with great conviction (Dawkins 2006), but science has not proven the non-existence of God.
L'Ouest urged Belgium to remain neutral in World War II, a stance Hergé supported, creating the Mr Bellum strip to argue this position.
We might ask: "Why don't we routinely allow open access to data?" Do we then enact some self-criticism for not having been arguing this position for many years, and should we simply be accused of jumping on what has become the politically correct band wagon?
Yen argues this will position ProtonMail as a direct competitor to Google Apps' email — but one that can tout "compelling security and privacy advantages" vs Mountain View's ad-targeting powered business model for its free email.
Reid argues that this position is inconsistent with Hume's claim that impressions are the efficient causes of ideas.
Unfortunately, he argues for this position by citing human subjects: Socrates, for example, would still have been who he was even if he had had different parents.
There are different answers to the question of whether this account serves to reconcile Malebranche's occasionalism with his claim that we have genuine freedom of action; cf. Schmaltz (2005), which defends the coherence of Malebranche's final position on this issue (in line with the earlier view in Laporte 1951), and Greenberg (2008), which argues that this position is not fully consistent.
Schulze argues that this position illegitimately uses the concept of causality to conclude as a matter of strong epistemological requirement, and not merely as a matter of rational speculation, that there is some object — namely, the thing-in-itself — outside of all possible human experience, which is nonetheless the cause of our sensations.
