I find that this is an especially common term on law school essay exams!

Eh,

I think that, arguably, there is any problem with the use of the word arguably -- as long as it is used properly.

Time, after all, is a scarce resource. So, sometimes one could imagine arguments for a position, but you haven't really had the time to flesh them out. Maybe it just isn't worth the resources. But, you are saying something here: you are saying, looking at this in less depth, it tentatively appears that one could argue a certain position.

Of course, for an exam in a law school class, one actually does need to expend the time to make the actual argument (unless it is a fringe issue that really is outside the scope of the exam). But, in other contexts, there isn't always enough time to make every argument, or if there is enough time, one is inclined to spend it on other things.

Another context in which arguably is useful is as a conversation starter on a particular topic. You haven't made the argument yet, and you aren't sure it can be made but you think it probably can be. You assert "arguably X" and see how things develop in conversation. Maybe after that conversation, you will have, you know, an actual argument.

Overall, I agree that "arguably" is definitely not persuasive in making an argument. I don't think it is intended to be. It really is a signal that one is not certain that the argument can be made, but that you have a superficial sense that it probably could be made. In a world of imperfect information and for everyday decisions that are not important, that is more than nothing. Just barely though.

To me, it seems that using the word "arguably" indicates that there is an argument to be made, but that you don't necessarily endorse it yourself. For example, although I believe that racial preferences are unconstitutional, immoral and counterproductive. But, in discussing them, I may say, "Arguably, Affirmative Action is justified by the disadvantages Black people as a whole face in having inherited the proceeds of slaves rather than that of their owners." Of course, I would hope I would go on to make a case why I felt the argument was insufficient.

After pondering how I use it, I think I do normally use it with arguments. I write arguably for propositions that I don't believe are true but that do have non-frivolous support, or for propositions on which I haven't decided yet. In both cases, I think I would write "arguably" somewhere in the middle of explaining what the argument would be.

Use of the word "arguably" works well when you want to compare two assertions, one of which is merely "arguable" while the other is not.

My favourite use of this in a law review was an aside talking about globalization: "It could be argued that the ultimate global standardization of behaviours, practices or social structures could pose risks to the very survival of humanity, susceptible as it would all be to attack by viruses or terrorists able to exploit a universal vulnerability."

I have to disagree in part. It is a hedge term, and sometimes they are really useful:

1. To preserve wriggle room if you are ever up for Supreme Court confirmation. E.g. denying abortion is arguably involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th amendment.

2. To float a high-risk, high reward argument that the judge might take up and run with himself, but insulate yourself from being really slammed at oral argument. E.g. my opponent's argument is arguably fraud on the court.

3. When writing truly objective review pieces on close legal questions, which pretty much describes every law school exam, and many memos in practice.

"Arguably, under the local rules, we can serve by email alone, but to be safe, let's serve by us mail and email."

In the alternative, you can research and write a 10 page memo on service by email under the local rules.

It's not as bad as when someone says "I would argue..." If that's what you would argue, then argue it.

That's at least one thing that we Dutch have in common with our American friends: not much patience with tact. In other places, though, a hedge like this one would be used to soften the rudeness of disagreement a bit.

If the other side has to prove A and B, it might go something like... "Arguably, the plaintiffs have shown A. However, they certainly have not met their burden in showing B because...."

I really don't like this. It sounds like a concession. You are practically begging the judge to rule against you on A.

I think the time-honored "even if A were true (and I am not conceding it is), the appellant has not shown B."

As in:

(1)
"Even if the defense counsel's choice to not expend scarce resources investigating X were so unprofessional that they violated the highly deferential leeway given to defense counsel in such matters, the defendant has not shown prejudice."

I prefer this to:

(2)
"While the defendant has arguable demonstrated that defense counsel rendered him ineffective assistance of counsel, he has not shown prejudice."

In my mind, the second sentence nearly seems to concede ineffective assistance of counsel, whereas the first sentence makes it quite clear that no such concession is forthcoming.

One other valid use of "arguably" would be to try to argue that an assertion is not relevant to the case at hand.

"Such a decision might arguably violate the right to a jury trial, but only in circumstances removed from the present one," makes a nice caveat and suggests keeping certain things open for future argument. It might be particularly useful when granting opponents arguments as possibly valid while dismissing them as removed from the present case.

Also it is often appropriate to note the existance of a potential argument that you don't wish to or lack the time to consider.

For instance, "Arguably such a law would exceed congress's enumerated powers but here we only consider whether it would violate the 2nd amendment."

Wow. Deriding the use of arguably, now? Either esoterics are in search of a novel way to flutter the dovecoats or the soul of selective adverbs have mutated into literary phlogiston.

I once told a lady from Cleveland that I was arguably the man of her dreams. That she left immediately thereafter, sans a word, assured me that my case needed no added text.

Arguably, there's a better way to express that

Clearly, that's obviously the case.

Arguably.

I once worked with this girl who began every sentence with the word "actually", as if what followed was so implausible that it could not be believed otherwise. Drove me crazy.

Literally.

I think "arguably" and "I would argue" are both highly appropriate for asides; because I would argue some point if I thought it was sufficiently relevant to be worth breaking up the larger structure of my piece for, or if I thought that my audience cared to hear my argument, but since I am not arguing it, you may safely assume that while I can argue it, in the present context I don't think I should, so I am not.

As others mention, "arguably" is also good for flagging a view that you view as legitimate, but with which you disagree.

kormal:

I have epic FAILed the comments section.

If you think that's epic FAIL, you haven't read many of these comment threads.

I generally use "arguably" as an aside. To suggest that I could make a fair case on said point but it is not wholely relevant or worth devoting resources.

Of course, it could be asked why I bring it up at all if it isn't that relevant. The answer being that I am used to slashing paragraphs, sentences, words, and punctuation marks at work. When I write for personal reasons, I'll ramble on all I want. Because I can. I'm also not a lawyer.