An explicit argument consists of citing the relevant rules, stating how they've been violated, and providing evidence. It shows you've done the bare minimum to show your claim is plausible. This is in everyone's interest, especially yours as the interested party.

As basic advocacy, an explicit argument should be expected: if you're unable to articulate a decent argument, then how can you expect others to do so for you? Leaving that guesswork to others may not necessarily work in your favor. Do you really want to leave the best argument to chance & the unreliable charity of others?

An objective, sound argument may draw popular support by convincing them your claim is legitimate & just and demands action regardless of where admin decision ultimately settles. Not attempting one, however, draws all of it into question.