Quality of argument

The quality of argument in the city council is low.  None of the members have much training or experience in the art, so they make their points indirectly and without force.  The mayor could chew them up and spit them out if that were his role and he had a mind to.

Nonetheless, they do better than their betters at the state level.  In a news conference today, Party 1 asserted that problem X exists and action A will fix that problem; they did not offer much support for that position, which should have allowed Party 2 to argue:

1. Action A is not a cost-effective fix for problem X, and
2. Action B would be a better fix for problem X, and
3. Problem X isn't as severe as Party 1 said, anyway (a tough argument in this case, but one that could be made), 

Instead, Party 2 argues "Problem Y exists and Action A does nothing to address it."

I take back what I said about the city council.  At least they're trying.