Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[36]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[37]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[36]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-19 16:30:10.379
	1	+2016-09-19 16:30:10.0

Caselist.CitesClass[37]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,7 @@
	1	+A. Interpretation. Affirmatives must defend countries in general and must not defend that only a single government or combination of any type of governments prohibit production of nuclear power.
	2	+B. Violation
	3	+C. Standards
	4	+
	5	+Textuality - The resolution’s use of bare plurals with “countries” and “nuclear power” requires an unspecific approach. Nebel
	6	+ Jake Nebel Executive Director of Victory Briefs and a PhD candidate in Philosophy at New York University. He holds an AB in Philosophy from Princeton and a BPhil in Philosophy from Oxford, where he studied as a Marshall Scholar “Jake Nebel on Specifying “Just Governments”” VBriefly. DECEMBER 19, 2014. http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/
	7	+ I believe that debaters shouldn’t specify a government on the living wage topic. The standard argument for this is simple: “just governments” is a plural noun phrase, so it refers to more than one just government. Most debaters will stop there. But there is much more to say. (Some seem not to care about the plural construction. I plan to address this view in a later article about the parametric conception of topicality.) Some noun phrases include articles like “the,” demonstratives like “these,” possessives like “my,” or quantifiers like “some” or “all.” These words are called determiners. Bare plurals, including “just governments,” lack determiners. There’s no article, demonstrative, possessive, or quantifier in front of the noun to tell you how many or which governments are being discussed. We use bare plurals for two main purposes. Consider some examples: Debaters are here. Debaters are smart. In (1), “debaters” seems equivalent to “some debaters.” It is true just in case there is more than one debater around. If I enter a restaurant and utter (1), I speak truly if there are a couple of debaters at a table. This is an existential use of the bare plural, because it just says that there exist things of the relevant class (debaters) that meet the relevant description (being here). In (2), though, “debaters” seems to refer to debaters in general. This use of the bare plural is generic. Some say that generics refer to kinds of things, rather than particular members of their kinds, or that they refer to typical cases. There is a large literature on understanding generics. Here my aim is not to figure out the truth conditions for the generic reading of the resolution; I shall simply work with our pre-theoretical grip on the contrast between sentences like (1) and (2). This distinction bears importantly on the resolution. If “just governments” is a generic bare plural, then the debate is about whether just governments in general ought to require that employers pay a living wage. If it is an existential bare plural, then the debate is about whether some just governments—i.e., more than one—ought to require that employers pay a living wage. Only the second interpretation allows one to affirm by specifying a few governments

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-19 16:30:10.896

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mokrent

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Loyola DK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+34

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Brentwood Jackson Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - NEBEL THEORY

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+ghill