Argument TO THE MATTER

The argument to the matter is on point. It addresses the relevant facts and the central issue under discussion–the substance of the controversy, the merits of the case, the heart of the matter. 

For example, a discussion of the matter is avoided, when someone accused of corruption and embezzlement of public funds responds to the charge with a countercharge of misogyny. This classic argument substitutes a private and potentially shameful ulterior motive for a public and honorable good reason.
In this sense, an argument to the matter is quite different from an argument drawn from the subject matter of the law.

Like the ad judicium and ad rem arguments, arguments to the matter under discussion are not argumentative schemes— that is, they are not recognizable forms of reasoning that lead to a conclusion, such as the argument by analogy or by opposites. Each argument scheme may or may not be used to discuss what is the substance of an issue.

The three labels ad rem, ad judicium and to the matter could be taken absolutely, in the Lockian style, to refer to arguments that produce knowledge of natural objects by the scientific method, see ad judicium.
For the global opposition ad judicium – to the matter – ad rem  / to the letter, see ad judicium.

1. Argument to the matter and validity

Saying that an argument is to the matter means that it is relevant to the debate, and that it makes a substantial contribution to the discussion.
From the immanent evaluative perspective of the third parties, such arguments are the only ones whose strength and value are worth discussing and they should be mentioned in the argument map of the discussion.
However, this does not mean that they are automatically validated. For example, a party may cite a legitimate and relevant precedent. Nevertheless, this alleged precedent could be criticized and rejected, by an argument showing that it is not close enough to the actual facts. Even if this argument on the matter is ultimately declared irrelevant to the issue, it can still be noted as an interesting objection.

2. Form and substance (matter) of the discussion

Arguments concerning the substance of the discussion complement arguments concerning the form of the discussion,  which refer to the conditions under which the discussion takes place. These arguments concern the framework, procedures and rules by which the issue is addressed. For example, participants may object that they did not receive the necessary documents in time; or that there is no quorum.

3. Logos-based arguments and arguments to the matter

Misleading associations might lead one to think that arguments related to logos are « logical » and therefore objective, related to the matter and substance of things. As objective arguments, then, logos-based arguments could be contrasted with subjective ethotic and pathemic arguments.
However, in everyday argumentation, however, ethotic and pathemic arguments, like logos-based arguments, exploit logos, that is language and discourse. Most importantly, « object » can mean, first, any material or immaterial being, and second, the issue to be decided, as presented in an  argumentative question.
Arguments that refer to people, their values and their emotions are to the matter (ad rem and ad judicium) to the extent that they are relevant to the question. at hand. Recalling a person’s past condemnations is not always irrelevant. Describing the state of emotional shock in which the victim was found, is relevant in court. The challenge lies in distinguishing between aspects of a person that are and are not relevant to the discussion and which are not. This process is particularly complicated when the people involved are parties to the dispute.

4. Indirect Arguments, Peripheral Arguments,
Arguments to the Matter

Indirect arguments such as arguments from the absurd, or from ignorance, may or may not be to the matter, on point.
The same is true of peripheral arguments, which exploit indices incidentally connected with the dmain action. For example, a peripheral argument about the person is on point if it is relevant to the discussion: a witness saw him near the scene of the crime; or not really so: a witness says the suspect is a good friend of his, see circumstances.

[1] http://carm.org/dictionary-argumentum-ad-judicium (20-09-13).