The phrase "argument for defining" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the rationale or reasoning behind a specific definition or concept.
Example: "The argument for defining success in terms of personal fulfillment rather than financial gain is gaining traction in modern discussions."
Alternatives: "justification for defining" or "rationale for defining".
The first two arguments examine the conceptual basis for defining health inequalities as inter-individual or inter-group differences and qualified health inequities as unfair health inequalities from different philosophical perspectives.
Ann Owen, a former Fed economist, interpreted Bernanke's comments as an argument for "a more defined system to give them more authority to do this". "I don't see how you can set up some systemic risk authority that operates independent from the Fed because at the end of the day, if there needs to be lender of last resort, it needs to be the Fed," she said.
If you feel that there are terms that that may be foreign to some readers but are conceptually critical for your argument, briefly define them in your text to avoid alienating anyone.
It's a stunning expose of the destructive power of industry lobbyists, and a defining argument for a return to the open standards that have served other countries so well.
So for the sake of the argument, let's define this framework for what it is understood or misunderstood to be, which is the sum of all the global efforts in international development: aid from foreign governments, charity foundations, the myriad of NGOs and multinational organizations like the World Bank and UN agencies.
This argument practically defines the term non sequitur.
The idea is simple (although the software is so complex it took a year to build): before posting a comment in a forum or below an article, users must rate two randomly selected comments from others for quality of argument and civility (defined as an absence of personal attacks or abuse).
The arguments for Israel to define its borders through a two-state settlement remain strong.
But the dismal performance of most CEOs and their stunning pay packages define the argument for pay-for-performance.
Given this account of desert, anyone both liable and eligible for punishment deserves to be punished, and ceteris paribus ought to be punished.[4] The argument for imposing deserved punishments so defined on guilty offenders is thus in part an argument from consistency.
