The US should prohibit the import of all goods derived from the Amazon Rainforest.

P1: The effects of mining in the rainforest are disastrous. P2: We need to minimize deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest. P3: Banning imports from the Amazon will help protect & preserve it. P1) True, but we're not arguing whether or not the effects are disastrous. This is well known. The debate is about banning these items from the US. You need to provide quantitative proof that banning these items in the US is going to: A) Make a significant impact on depleting the goods *created* illegally from the Amazon rainforest. B) Prove that by restricting these items from the public, the good done to the rainforest exceeds on a moral and philosophical level the harm done by restricting these goods from the public. (Take your stance, i.e. utilitarian, etc.) P2) This is true, but once again you need to quantitatively prove a direct correlation to restricting the goods and a lesser deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. Also refer to P1-B. If you cannot provide the proofs then your argument is invalid. P3) In philosophy we call this kind of argument "inductive reasoning", that is, you stated a conclusion from an assumed but unfounded premise. You have provided no evidence to validate that banning these imports have a substantive impact on protecting and preserving it from illegal deforestation. Thus, you are working from a false assumed premise. Please refer to P1-A Essentially, your inductive argument is similar to this: P1) Some white swans are black, and this causes sickness among swans. P2) We need to make all white swans white in order to prevent them from getting sick. P3) Getting rid of paint in the world will ensure that all swans are white. Do you see the fallacies here? There are multiple. 1) Assumption that people are the primary cause of harm to the rainforest (may be probable but without evidence this is not absolute) 2) Assumption that minimizing deforestation by humans will make a significant positive impact on the rainforest (may be probable but without evidence this is not absolute) 3) The assumption that the US is the primary contributor to the deforestation of the rainforest (possible but without evidence this argument cannot be made) 4) The assumption that the US hasn't already made every effort to prevent deforestation of the Amazon 5) Not taking into account the potential negative societal and international impact with making such a restriction 6) Worst of all, other two points not necessary, the assumption that banning imports from the Amazon will have a direct correlation to a decreased deforestation of the Amazon. For example, banning these items from the US could significantly *increase* deforestation of the Amazon, as in this example: * Amazonian deforestationists (whatever you call them) lose their legal US market * As a result they seek more illegal channels into the US which as a result allows them more freedom to import illegal products, further worsening the Amazon Rainforest condition. * Further they seek more non-US international channels for selling and smuggling products derived from the Amazon rainforests, exponentially increasing deforestation. In the above example, banning said imports to the US would be devastating to the Amazon rainforests, a direct and total opposite of what was originally intended. Thus, your argument is flawed and invalid because you neglect numerous possibilities and use inductive reasoning without valid supported premises in an emotional attempt to sway listeners to your point of view, which may in fact be more detrimental to the Amazon rainforest than beneficial on a variety of levels.