"to advocate" vs "to advocate for"

Solution 1:

a1) 45% of the 2014 usage panel mentioned considered "The teacher advocated for a new educational technique" acceptable. That can hardly be used to justify ' "The teacher advocated for a new educational technique" is unacceptable' (or even 'borderline unacceptable'). It might fairly be claimed to suggest that it is advisable to choose instead "The teacher advocated a new educational technique". But note that 15% found even this unacceptable.

a2) One assumes that further examples were set before the usage panel, and that 'Many readers balk when the verb is used to express the same meaning in an intransitive form with the preposition "for" ' is thus a justifiable claim, but this is not made clear. A full reporting and analysis of the test is needed. Sometimes, switching from one prepositional object to another can have a marked effect on perceived acceptability. Such is English.

....................

(b) '[T]wo-thirds of the Panel approved "The teacher advocated for her at-risk students" ' makes no statement about the perceived acceptability of "The teacher advocated her at-risk students" (any more than for the perceived acceptability of say "Kilroy woz here"). " Sometimes, V + DO and V + P + PO are both perfectly acceptable constructions (eg "He appealed [against] the decision"). We need say '(50 +x)% of the panel actually considered the intransitive usage, with the transitivising preposition for, the more acceptable one when referencing persons / people groups rather than ideologies / practices'.

.....................

That having been said, I'd certainly agree with the conclusions (taking them as solid guidelines rather than prescriptions), deficient though the arguments (as presented) seem. Perhaps the definitions

advocate [trans] recommend, endorse, stand for, champion, fight for [an idea / ideology / principle / cause / practice]

and

advocate [intrans] [+ for-phrase] fight on behalf of, intermediate [usu though not always a person or group of people: see new usage notes]

(with some improved usage notes!) would help to clarify the situation.

Solution 2:

1. Delete "for": They endorse or argue for it.
2. Delete "for": Human rights are not the beneficiary. It argues for human rights.

3. Delete "for" but re-order it: They publicly advocate stricter immigration controls.

4. is right. I think what it means, more precisely, is 'advocates on behalf of'.

5. could be either: They advocated him = they endorsed him. They advocated for him = they argued on his behalf.

(2. You could say, "He advocates for a human rights organization." They WOULD be beneficiaries.)

I think you've got it!