Statement & Argument — Should a person involved in terrorism at home be deprived of citizenship? Arguments: I. Yes, terrorism harms national progress and is against the idea of nationality. II. No, terrorism is an illegal act and should be punished under existing law without citizenship stripping.

Introduction / Context:
Citizenship deprivation is an extreme sanction. A strong pro argument must show compelling state interest and deterrence value; a strong contra argument must ground itself in rule of law and proportionality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Terrorism severely endangers public safety and national security.
• Criminal justice systems provide a spectrum of penalties, including life imprisonment.
• Citizenship stripping can raise due process and statelessness concerns.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I appeals to national interest and deterrence, which can be a strong ground. Argument II defends due process and proportionality under existing law, which can also be strong. Since they are mutually opposed yet individually cogent, the correct test response is that either argument is strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong on national security grounds.2) II is strong on legal process and rights grounds.

Final Answer:
Either Argument I or II is strong.