I would argue that VS I argue that

Question

I googled the meaning of "I would argue that" and one site said: a phrase used to introduce an argument:

I would argue that Ferguson's courts prevented the justice system.

I also found these:

However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks.

In fact, I would argue that it goes against the values of a free and fair society to force a group of people to do something against their will.

In the first example , the tense after "I would argue that" was past but in the latter two , the tenses were present.

What is the difference between "I would argue that" and "I argue that"?

Can we bring any tense after "I would argue that"?

Answer 1

I would argue that it will certainly rain tomorrow.

is milder and less direct in tone than

I argue that it will certainly rain tomorrow.

The form with "would" is a little more soft and polite. The speaker openly admits that he may not be 100% right about the issue.

Note that I used will in both my example sentences. The part starting with "that" is a content clause, and it can assume any tense, because its tense does not depend on would:

I would argue [that it will rain tomorrow].
I would argue [that it rained yesterday].
I would argue [that it rains often in this city, because it is surrounded by mountains.]
I would argue [that it would have rained if we had been in my home city instead.]

---

The word whose tense directly depends on "would" is "argue". It can assume only the Present Simple form:

I would argue (CORRECT)
I would argued (WRONG)