Huang says that we should reduce violent crime by addressing the root causes of violence, which could be taken as agreement with this claim. However, Suarez never talks about the merit of addressing the root causes of violence.

Neither speaker talks about whether people deserve punishment. Their debate is about the practical effect of mandatory sentences, not the moral aspect of deservingness.

Huang explicitly disagrees with this claim, but Suarez doesn’t give an opinion. Although Suarez thinks that mandatory sentences can deter violent crime, that’s not the same as saying that potential offenders always carefully consider potential punishments.

Huang disagrees with this but Suarez agrees, making this the point of disagreement. Huang’s argument indicates that mandatory sentences don’t have a deterrent effect on violent crime. Suarez, however, directly states a belief that mandatory sentences prevent most violence.

Suarez most likely agrees with this, but Huang never talks about nonviolent crimes such as tax evasion. We don’t know what Huang thinks about the possible deterrent effect of severe penalties in such cases.