| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,17 @@ |
|
1 |
+====Interpretation: If the affirmative choses to parametricize an advocacy, they must specify at minimum two actors, with a solvency advocate that species both of them taking an action. ==== |
|
2 |
+**GREG N. CARLSON, 1977, A UNIFIED ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH BARE PLURAL*, http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~~ivano/LogicSeminar_15W/Material/Carlson_1977_EnglishBarePlurals.pdf** |
|
3 |
+The notion that the null determiner is the plural counterpart of u is bolstered by |
|
4 |
+AND |
|
5 |
+. It is not clear to me how to state these restrictions formally. |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+====Violation:==== |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+====Standards:==== |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+====Textuality: "Countries" is a plural word. By definition, a plural noun must have more than one subject. Grammatically, the resolution reads that multiple countries have to prohibit nuclear production. Grammar is key to fairness because it is the only predictable, not arbitrary way of debating the resolution. Key to education because we cannot clash if you are unpredictable.==== |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+====Limits: There are 144 countries that the aff can spec—forcing the aff to spec at least two countries decreases the number of combinations the aff can specify. My interpretation is uniquely key on this topic because nuclear power initiatives are often multinational—empirically proven through Saudi-Korean relations. The topic already huge, don't make it bigger. Limits are key to clash because you can only prepare so much—their interpretation means there will never be real substantive debate, just generic K rounds. And key to fairness because it ensures that one debater will not arbitrarily be ahead in the debate.==== |