I think I've discovered a critical component missing in non-violent communication. Namely, normative factors. Without which, simply stating "needs" becomes an effort in futility.
When asking someone to state their argument, it is generally understood to mean their consideration which justifies or explains their point of view, not an invitation for a domestic. Its all part of the logical process - a series of if/then statements to illustrate evidentiary claims. I believe something and want to impart that belief. An argument is the process used to communicate it.
In non-violent communication, I now believe that simply stating needs is insufficient. One must know why that need exists, or at a minimum understand the nature and causality of having needs met. I would even go so far to say that I've thought I had a need which could only be satisfied in a specific manner, but once I articulated the reason, it either became clear it could be met through multiple vectors or a satisfactory argument was made which I had not considered.