| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,26 @@ |
|
1 |
+Interpretation: Bare plurals-The phrase public colleges and universities in the resolution is a generic bare plural. |
|
2 |
+Nebel 14, Jake, AB in philosophy at Princeton and the BPhil at Oxford, NYU,20 14, http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/ |
|
3 |
+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. |
|
4 |
+‘In’ means throughout |
|
5 |
+ |
|
6 |
+Words and Phrases, 1959 |
|
7 |
+(p. 546 (PDNS3566)) |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126. |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+Second, The United States includes all the territories and land over which it has jurisdiction |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 5 |
|
14 |
+(Dictionary of Military, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/United+States, 2005) |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+Includes the land area, internal waters, territorial sea, and airspace of the United States, including the following: a. US territories, possessions, and commonwealths; and b. Other areas over which the US Government has complete jurisdiction and control or has exclusive authority or defense responsibility. |
|
17 |
+ |
|
18 |
+Standard: Limits |
|
19 |
+Multiple impacts to loss of limits |
|
20 |
+1. Competitive equity. There’s no way for the neg to prepare against the thousands of universities that exist which means that the aff will always win the case debate. Gives a significant research advantage to the aff because they have had weeks to prep for their specific case whereas the neg only has a few minutes of pre round prep. |
|
21 |
+2. Absolutism. The aff explodes research burdens forcing neg debaters to resort to either extreme K’s or disads that don’t really link which is terrible for our education because it teaches us to look solely into nihilistic and extremist literature as opposed to generating clash about the affirmative. . Also creates a substantive side bias because the aff will have an easier time beating generic arguments. |
|
22 |
+3. Grammar. The affirmative does not affirm the resolution as it is which means you can probably vote negative on presumption. |
|
23 |
+4. Topic education. the affirmative model of debate is bad because it results in dogmatism as the negative can’t make objections to the case debate itself which results in a lack of truth testing which is the key educational impact of debate. |
|
24 |
+Prefer competing interpretations over reasonability. Reasonability leads to a race to the bottom, justifies judge intervention, and produces hella arbitrary brightlines. |
|
25 |
+Competing interps coopts reasonability because reasonability begs the question of how we determine what is reasonable which is through the competing interps debate. If I win that the interpretation creates a better model of debate, then theirs should be considered unreasonable. |
|
26 |
+Default to potential abuse, it’s not a question of what the aff does, but rather what the aff’s model of debate justifies. |