argue with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "argue with" is correct and usable in written English.
It is usually used to express disagreement or to express that two people are having a dispute or heated discussion. Example: The two colleagues began to argue with each other about the new project.

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Can't argue with that.

The New York Times

Never argue with these people.

The New Yorker

It's hard to argue with.

The New York Times

Hard to argue with that.

The New York Times

We argue with each other.

The New York Times

"We can argue with you.

The New Yorker

None could argue with that.

Independent

I couldn't argue with that.

The New York Times

Nobody can argue with that.

The Economist

Who can argue with that?

The New York Times

You can't argue with that".

The New York Times - Sports

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "argue with", ensure the context clearly indicates whether it's a formal debate or an informal disagreement. Choose synonyms like "dispute with" or "reason with" for more precise meaning.

Common error

Avoid using "argue with" in formal writing when a more nuanced term like "debate with" or "take issue with" would be more appropriate. "Argue with" can sometimes imply a heated or negative interaction.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "argue with" functions primarily as a verb phrase indicating disagreement or contention. It is used to describe the act of expressing opposing viewpoints or engaging in a debate. Ludwig AI confirms this is a standard and usable phrase.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

60%

Wiki

20%

Formal & Business

10%

Less common in

Science

5%

Encyclopedias

3%

Reference

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "argue with" is a common and grammatically correct way to express disagreement or opposition in English. Ludwig AI's analysis confirms its usability across various contexts, particularly in News & Media and informal settings. While the phrase is generally neutral, it's crucial to consider the context and choose more nuanced alternatives like "dispute with" or "take issue with" for formal or professional writing. Remember to use "argue with" appropriately to convey the intended level of contention or debate.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

take issue with

Expresses disagreement or objection to a specific point.

dispute with

Emphasizes a formal disagreement or debate.

be at odds with

Shows a state of disagreement or conflict.

quarrel with

Suggests a more personal and often emotional disagreement.

clash with

Highlights a strong opposition or conflict of ideas.

cross swords with

Suggests a vigorous debate or confrontation.

contend with

Implies struggling against someone's viewpoint or actions.

debate with

Focuses on a structured discussion of opposing viewpoints.

differ with

Implies a simple difference in opinion without necessarily involving conflict.

reason with

Indicates an attempt to persuade someone through logic and discussion.

FAQs

How can I use "argue with" in a sentence?

You can use "argue with" to describe disagreeing with someone, as in "I don't want to argue with you about this" or "It's difficult to argue with her logic".

What are some alternatives to "argue with"?

Depending on the context, you could use "dispute with", "reason with", "debate with", or "take issue with".

Is it better to "argue with" or "discuss with" someone?

"Discuss with" suggests a more collaborative and respectful exchange of ideas, while "argue with" implies disagreement and potential conflict. The best choice depends on the nature of the interaction.

What's the difference between "argue with" and "fight with"?

"Argue with" generally refers to a verbal disagreement or debate, while "fight with" suggests a more intense and possibly physical conflict. The phrase "fight with" implies a stronger emotional component.