In my case, I will sometimes correct an argument that is poorly formed. Or I may say, "That is a conclusion. Give me an argument." Or I may say, "That is not a legal argument. Give me an argument in law." And this practice, the way a golf pro at a country club might watch a club member hit tee shots, is meant to familiarize the student with the forms of constitutional argument. So it can be said that I am (tacitly, perhaps) approving certain forms of argument, but the reason I am doing so is because these forms of argument are the ones that are approved-are validated by their ever-presence in the practice. The "normativity" here is simply that the rules constituting a practice are norms. It is not the normativity of justification. I am not approving these forms of argument because I approve of them.

XREF: Connects to Wittgenstein's rule-following and practices-based normativity, as well as Rawls's 'practice rules' concept.

Philip Chase Bobbitt, Philip Chase Bobbitt - Refl…, loc. 437