End of Day 2 Assignments
- Write sentence as singular – settled
- R3 Change countries to # 3 (eliminate
- #3 - Through vs.
including or by
- Level of commitment between US and
- Topic #5 issue (Hays)
- And / or
- How modifies before itv(Darren)
- Use of word ‘them’ appropriate
- Singular or plural (Darren)
- Comma
after
- (Andrew)
- Identity of the Palestinian Authority as government
- Nation-state vs. government (Steve)
- Guarantees vs. assurances
- (Naveen, Greta, Will)
including vs. by.
2 of the resolutions use the word including, 2 of the resolutions use the word by. it seems to me that one could argue that having the term by limits the constructive engagment to the actions specified in plan, whereas the word including allows the aff to do more. why aren't we using the same term for all four resolutions?
Joe Keeton wrote:
including vs. by.
2 of the resolutions use the word including, 2 of the resolutions use the word by. it seems to me that one could argue that having the term by limits the constructive engagment to the actions specified in plan, whereas the word including allows the aff to do more. why aren't we using the same term for all four resolutions?
The reason for this is that that nature of the topic is entirely different for the two resolutions that use “including” vs. the two that use “by”. The two resolutions that utilize “including” offer a choice of security guarantee(s) or foreign assistance while the two resolutions that say “by” only suggest one option for the aff—offer security guarantee(s).If you look up the definition of “including” and “by”, there is a significant difference between the two terms in context. “Including” suggests that as part of the affirmative, they should include either security guarantee(s) or foreign assistance or both. We intentionally left the options up to the affirmative. “By” means “with the use of”, which is only appropriate because the resolution only contains only one option in addition to being a general “constructive engagement” policy, which suggests that the aff has to use a security guarantee. The difference is that one wording allows a choice, the other does not.
Actually one amendment to what I wrote above: both wordings--including or by--potentially suggest that the affirmative can do more than just offer a security guarantee. For instance, with Syria, the affirmative's offer of a security guarantee would probably not be sufficient without also removing them from the terrorist list and removing some sanctions. I believe that C Engagement allows flexibility to do these kind of negotiations/diplomacy. The only question is whether in the resolutions with "including" does the aff have to defend both foreign assistance and security guarantee(s). As a committee, we agreed that certain nations in the resolution would not make sense if the aff was bound to require both a security guarantee and foreign assistance.
Including means in addition to?
After a quick scan of definitions and words (onelook.com), does including in those resolutions require affirmatives to do more than offer security guarantees / foreign assistance?
verb: have as a part, be made up out of (Example: "The list includes the names of many famous writers")
verb: add as part of something else; put in as part of a set, group, or category (Example: "We must include this chemical element in the group")
Can "part" mean "whole"?
Think the "-ing" makes the meaning different? Here's Encarta:
included in group or whole: used to introduce examples of people or things forming part of a particular group or whole
It will cost you $65 including sales tax.
Definition #2:
and in addition: as well as
Discussion of the market analysis - including whether it was skewed in favor of launching the project - went on for an hour.
This would hypothetically mean that affirmatives must offer more constructive engagement than merely a security guarentee. Should affs be required to do two (or more) things in their plan text?
Before you say "see china", most smart affs got out of that diplo-pic by says that "economic equals diplo" or claiming it as some sort of implied enforcement mechanism. Because "constructive engagement" is surely more than just a security guarentee, the word "including" might force affs to do more than they want to do.
Yes, i've done very little research here, but my initial hunch seemed supported after some help from google.
Did I miss anything?