The phrase "argue moreover" is not correct and does not work well in written English.
It is not a standard expression and may confuse readers; "moreover" is typically used to add information rather than to indicate an argument.
Example: "The study shows significant results; moreover, it highlights the need for further research."
Alternatives: "furthermore" or "in addition".
They argue, moreover, that the spread of nuclear technology leads to the proliferation of atomic weapons.
We argue, moreover, that this conclusion is important to the matter of reforming Russia's institutions so as to encourage a coherent party system.
Those officials and Senate leaders argue, moreover, that unions are wrong to fight the tax, saying that it will hold down health costs and that money employers save on health premiums will ultimately go to higher wages.
It would be hard to argue, moreover, that harm in that form has no moral relevance.
We argue, moreover, that state litigation cannot be understood in a vacuum, but must be assessed as part of a broader phenomenon in American law: our reliance on entrepreneurial litigation to develop and enforce public norms.
We will also argue, moreover, that this metonymy/displacement from ELSA to RRI must be regarded as a symptom reflecting a more fundamental shift/tension within the discourse and practice of research concerning the societal dimensions of life sciences innovations as such.
He argues, moreover, that international law-making, even in the economic arena, is slowly being prised open and thereby subject to influence by a growing number of actors, including developing countries and NGOs.
Arguing, moreover, that knowledge cannot be value-free and that it always reflects the interests of the knower, those philosophers maintained that the only way to approximate the ideal of objectivity is to welcome diverse voices into the epistemic community.
It could be argued, moreover, that the inevitable flaw in a Caesar-as-Trump interpretation of the play is that the text itself engenders more sympathy for the central figure than Trump himself who memorably incited the threat that the "Second Amendment people" might post to Hillary Clinton during the campaign deserves.
Plaintiff argues, moreover, citing our decision in Cohen v Lord, Day & Lord [n 3] (75 NY2d 95, 101), that the dictates of public policy in DR 1-103(A) have such force as to warrant our recognition of the tort of abusive discharge pleaded in the fifth cause of action.
It is argued, moreover, that while the risk to reputation is a compelling reason for high-profile companies to produce CCCs, the vast majority of companies largely unknown to the general public (irrespective of their impact on society) are not subject to the same rationale.
