| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,34 @@ |
|
1 |
+**====Interpretation: Neither the aff nor neg can defend an advocacy that specifies a particular country or set of countries that prohibits the production of nuclear power. ====** |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+**===="Countries" is a generic bare plural, just like "just governments."====** |
|
5 |
+**Nebel '14** (Jake Nebel, "Jake Nebel on Specifying 'Just Governments,'" 12/19, http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/) OS |
|
6 |
+To my ear, the generic reading is correct. I think the best evidence |
|
7 |
+AND |
|
8 |
+claim and hold that the U.S. and Canada are exceptions. |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+====Violation: ==== |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+====Standards:==== |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+====~~1~~ Precision—three impacts==== |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+====A~~ Predictability |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+====B~~ Topicality rule—precision independently outweighs ==== |
|
24 |
+**Nebel '15 **(Jake, "The Priority of Resolutional Semantics," 2/20/15, http://vbriefly.com/2015/02/20/the-priority-of-resolutional-semantics-by-jake-nebel/) |
|
25 |
+One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality |
|
26 |
+AND |
|
27 |
+the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above. |
|
28 |
+ |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+====C~~ Jurisdiction |
|
31 |
+ |
|
32 |
+====~~2~~ Limits |
|
33 |
+ |
|
34 |
+Advocacy skills |