The phrase "aggressive argument" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe a debate or discussion that is forceful, confrontational, or intense in nature.
Example: "During the meeting, she presented an aggressive argument for the new policy, leaving little room for counterpoints."
Alternatives: "forceful argument" or "contentious argument".
This is an aggressive argument, and if the courts reject it, there is no CPP.
Bold, colorful and emotive, her work is an aggressive argument against the coolness of Minimalism and other late-modern movements that championed the cerebral over the passionate.
He raised an aggressive argument with President Obama over energy, framing it as a policy disagreement and a skirmish in the culture wars.
He had caught her having an aggressive argument with a woman on her course, and, after several complaints from other students, spoke to her about it.
This spurred an admonition from Justice Samuel Alito: "[Y]ou are making a very, very aggressive argument in favour of executive power" that "has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Senate is in session or not".
Asked on Wednesday by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, why, in her role as solicitor general, she had made an aggressive argument in defending a federal statute outlawing the sale of dogfighting videos, Ms. Kagan said poor legislative craftsmanship had left her little choice.
Lawyers for the President's longtime fixer faced a skeptical judge and aggressive arguments from prosecutors.
Major displays of enthusiasm or dismay are rare, and aggressive arguments and overt self-promotion are no-nos.
"Despite continued aggressive arguments by the Democrat attorneys, the individual boards, realizing the importance of not disenfranchising military personnel, reversed their opinion of a week ago".
Hearing the case, Judge Efraín Novillo, 53, on the bench only since January, sat in a button-down shirt and blue jeans listening to hours of often aggressive arguments from lawyers for each side.
Catherine M. Sharkey, a law professor at New York University, said the decision does mean that "there is certainly a thumb on the scale against the more aggressive arguments for implied pre-emption".
