Strength Evaluation
Which of the following two arguments is stronger?

Please compare the strength of the two arguments below, ignoring all others.

Note. The platform identifies the top arguments for each viewpoint independently of others. This implies that the competition occurs among arguments supporting the same viewpoint.

Argument A

On the surface, the U.S. sanctions Iran to halt its nuclear program and protect Israel. But in reality, these sanctions target countries that do not align with American interests, as detailed below.

Iran has not invaded another country in the past two centuries. Its official stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict—which has been submitted to the UN—calls for a resolution through a comprehensive democratic election. While Iran has never expressed an intention to launch an unprovoked military attack against Israel, Israel has assassinated many Iranian scientists and officials. It also repeatedly used its military to expand illegal settlements and occupy disputed land, despite warnings from numerous countries around the world, including its closest ally, the United States.

As a member of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), Iran has the right to enrich uranium up to 20% and more. Despite this, Iran agreed to be held to a different standard than other member states by voluntarily limiting its enrichment to 3.67% under the JCPOA. What more could it have done?

Nevertheless, the U.S. under President Donald Trump continued to impose sanctions on Iran—even after multiple international bodies confirmed that Iran was complying with the agreement.

Argument B

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) strictly prohibits any form of collective punishment. Therefore, the United States is legally prohibited from implementing policies that diminish the well-being of millions of ordinary citizens, even if the underlying objectives are legitimate. Although the U.S. claims that its sanctions do not affect ordinary citizens, this claim does not align with the actual situation on the ground. It is impossible to drastically reduce a country's income (by some estimates, to a third of its original value) and comfortably assert that its ordinary citizens will not be affected.

Overview