Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
Interpretation: the aff may not defend that the appropriation of outer space by a certain set of private entities is unjust.
Entities is a generic bare plural.
Nebel 20 Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs. He writes a lot of this stuff lol – duh. “Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate” Victory Briefs, 19 August 2020. no url AG
I agree that
AND
is not existential.
It applies to this topic –
A - entities is an existential bare plural bc it has no determiner.
B - The sentence “The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust” does not imply “the appropriation of outer space by private and public entities is unjust”
Precision o/w – anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution.
Violation: they spec
Standards:
1 - Limits – they can spec infinite different entities like spaceX, etc.. - that’s supercharged by the ability to spec combinations of types of entities. This takes out functional limits – it’s impossible for me to research every possible combination of entities, governments, and appropriation.
2 – TVA – just read your aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff
3 - PICs aren’t aff offense –
A - it’s ridiculous to say that neg potential abuse justifies the aff being non-T
B - There’s only a small number of pics on this topic
C - PICs incentivize them to write better affs that can generate solvency deficits to PICs
D – SPEC a type of appropriation