The phrase "argued section" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to a part of a text or document where a particular argument or point of view is presented.
Example: "In the argued section of the paper, the author presents compelling evidence to support their thesis."
Alternatives: "debated section" or "disputed section".
As Plumwood argues (Section 2.4), a rejection of the culture-nature dualism has implications for an ecofeminist conception of the self: humans are both individual selves that are distinct from nature and ecological selves that are continuous with nature (see also Mathews 1994b; Cuomo 2005).
But, she argues, Section 230 was written two decades ago, when interactions on the internet were relatively rare, and before people were routinely using the web to get everything from jobs to transportation to shelter to sex.
Observers worry that justices may argue Section 5 is unconstitutional and send it back to Congress to make it easier for states to skirt the requirement or update the formula dictating which areas are subject to preclearance.
When the Constitution took effect in 1901, Quick and Garran argued that Section 116 was redundant as the Commonwealth had not been given the legislative power under Section 51 to establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise.
Some have argued that Section 2 was implicitly repealed by the Fifteenth Amendment, but the Supreme Court acknowledged the provisions of Section 2 in some later decisions.
They argued that section 377 of the Indian penal code perpetuated Victorian-era antipathy and bigotry towards gay people.
At the Coalition party room on Tuesday 18 MPs spoke about 18C, including the former prime minister, Tony Abbott, who argued the section needed reform and procedural change would not be enough.
The court today implicitly rejected that argument, instead adopting the position that Laurence H. Tribe, Mr. Gore's lead lawyer, argued: that Section 5 offered nothing more than a "safe harbor" for a state's electors, one that a state could choose to utilize or not without intervention by the federal courts.
As argued in section 4.3, punishment, not suffering, should be thought of as the proper retributive desert object, and thus the instrumentalist conception should be rejected.
As was argued in section 3.2, even if they are weak, the presence of positive desert makes a difference to the justification of punishment.
