There is no ambiguity in the proponent’s argument. The opponent does not discuss two or more interpretations of a term the proponent uses in their argument.

The proponent’s argument does not result in a self-contradiction. The opponent addresses the proponent’s argument by presenting an additional consideration the proponent fails to account for.

The opponent does not discuss any undesirable consequences of the chemical drip method. He only addresses undesirable consequences resulting from the irradiation method.

The opponent does not address safety with response to producers. His claims are only in the perspective of safety with respect to consumers.

The advantage claimed by the proponent is the advantage of killing salmonella. The disadvantage is the irradiation method kills bacteria that warn of botulism without actually killing botulism. The alternative way the opponent proposes is the safe chemical drip method.