Redundancy Evaluation
Are the following arguments (essentially) making the same point?

These questions help ensure that the top arguments identified are distinct.

Argument A

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.

Argument B

Countries that are subject to sanctions often perceive their policies as being moral and virtuous, and they tend to view the United States as a bully attempting to dominate the world. As a result, they are unlikely to yield to the pressure of sanctions. Instead, sanctions frequently fuel resentment and can even strengthen national resolve, driving harder work and innovation.

For example, Iran significantly expanded its uranium enrichment efforts after the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA.

Overview