"irrelevant argument" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it in a variety of contexts when discussing a disagreement or dispute, usually to describe something that does not address the actual points being debated. For example, "The opposition raised an irrelevant argument about the economy in an attempt to avoid acknowledging their flawed argument on the issue."
Appearances are irrelevant; argument is illusion.
But that's an irrelevant argument now, since Michael Jordan won gold in 1992 and draped a flag over the logo of a rival sponsor.
My only regret would be having to explain it in detail to you, which would defeat the purpose of using literary devices in songwriting and lower the discussion to some silly and irrelevant argument about chemical processes".
But claiming that the league was unable to properly evaluate players coming directly out of high school seems to be an irrelevant argument when many of the game's biggest stars were discovered without ever stepping foot into a college arena.
As one who served on many committees he chaired I can say that he was superb at making his colleagues stick to the point and not wander off into irrelevant argument.
(Whether or not this should affect his credibility is an irrelevant argument here, for clearly it does in the eyes of those who remain unconvinced).Moreover, many of the study's supporters adopting some version of "don't focus on the number" have tried to bolster their argument by pointing out that it could be as low as 400,000.
Mr. Crames says the judge stops people in midsentence if they ramble or make irrelevant arguments.
That we will learn little because the important politicians will not be properly called to account, and too much time will be spent listening to irrelevant arguments from irrelevant parties.
For a certain breed of digital utopian, these were always supposed to be irrelevant arguments: eventually, they argued, the inherent logic of the internet would defy all efforts to control it.
He may wish to exclude irrelevant arguments; but the Federal Rules of Evidence, which judges use to rule bits of testimony admissible or otherwise, do not necessarily apply in an impeachment trial.In short, the usual legal guidelines that judges enforce do not exist: the chief justice is about to take on a role in which he will be neither chief nor particularly judicial.
They aren't willing to be swayed by false, irrelevant arguments.
