The phrase "argued roughly" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe a situation where someone presented their argument in a blunt or imprecise manner.
Example: "During the debate, she argued roughly, making it difficult for the audience to follow her points."
Alternatives: "contended bluntly" or "debated in a coarse manner."
But all three argued roughly the same points about the use of likenesses in video games.
They argued, roughly speaking, that the average punter cares nothing about preference deals, the impact on primary vote will be minimal, and only with the extra preferences will we be able to get over the line.
Aristotle has argued (roughly) that time cannot have a beginning on the grounds that in order for time to have a beginning, there must be a first moment of time, but that in order to count as a moment of time, that allegedly first moment would have to come between an earlier period of time and a later period of time, which is inconsistent with its being the first moment of time.
The DLC recently produced a book on security policy, arguing, roughly speaking, that Islamist terrorism is as big a threat as George Bush says it is, but needs to be fought more intelligently.
She argues roughly as follows: (1) Any agent so manipulated into X-ing is not free or morally responsible, despite satisfying the pertinent compatibilist-friendly conditions.
He argues, roughly, that we should first distinguish between what he calls 'intrinsic' intentionality on the one hand, and merely 'as if' intentionality, and 'interpreter relative' intentionality, on the other.
Scientists have long speculated and argued about why we devote roughly a third of our lives to sleep, but with little concrete data to support any particular theory.
Scientists have long argued about why we devote roughly a third of our lives to sleep, but with little concrete data to support any particular hypothesis.
This type, he argued, was roughly equivalent to general intelligence, denoted in psychology by the letter "g".
Both Michael Fara and Michael Smith have also argued in roughly the same manner.
By changing the psychology around the world, they argue, the roughly $100 billion in remaining sanctions will gradually be whittled away.
