"depth arguments" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It refers to arguments that delve deeply into a topic or issue, providing thorough and well-supported reasoning. Example: In his essay, the author presents a series of depth arguments to support his claim that technology has a negative impact on human interaction.
The exact details of how the short spatial scale of Pc's interacts with three-dimensional conductivity structures are likely more complex than the simple skin depth argument suggests.
On Dec. 5, Heer -- who has a habit of publishing in-depth arguments, bit by bit, via his Twitter account -- posted a lengthy takedown of TNR, calling it a "voice of technocratic Ivy League liberalism" and slamming the magazine for only treating the topic of race as "a thought experiment".
An in-depth argument for why rap should not be considered poetry.
Sustained concentration on the printed word, whether in-depth argument or fictional narrative, creates a particular cerebral event which visual-dependent media cannot.
He claimed that members of the sports media, in particular ESPN's Skip Bayless, try to make statements "nobody can question," and in turn, avoid the nitty gritty details that explain why teams really win and lose (thereby saving themselves from having to construct and/or defend an in-depth argument).
On Tuesday, however, Judge Kahn said he would be willing to hear in greater depth new arguments related to the fund agreements.
We begin this paper by discussing in greater depth existing arguments regarding the political behaviour of citizens under 18 and the potential effects of lowering the voting age in terms of democratic legitimacy, focussing on turnout and the quality of vote choice.
We then illustrate our approach with a natural deduction proof theory for propositional classical logic that allows measurement of the 'depth' of an argument, such that the construction of depth-bounded arguments is a tractable problem, and each increase in depth naturally equates with an increase in the inferential capabilities of real-world agents.
Why pick a fight with Tristram Hunt that, on scholarship, on depth of argument, you're bound to lose?
It has no consistent graininess or depth of argument about, or real feeling for, Mr. Springsteen's work.
Further, Cooke noted that, in covering such a wide array of positions, Cochrane had to sacrifice depth of argument; Cooke considered this unproblematic, as readers could easily follow up the thinkers cited.
