They are arguing over whether we say dayo heicha d’mifrach kal vachomer, not over how much “sense” a k”v has to make.
It’s possible to express R’ Tarfon’s view as being that the existence of a k”v is a mandate to learn out a halacha, and if something can be learned from the k”v without violating dayo, we do so and stop there, but if necessary, we even violate dayo in order to make sure the k”v is used.
I’m not sure that’s necessary, though.