I take it to mean "all" _UN_ Peacekeepers.

If the statement wants to qualify which UN Peacekeepers should have such
power, it might have said: UN Peacekeepers trained to assess when such a
condition calls for it, should have the power to engage in offensive
operations to protect innocents from loss of life.







On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Scott Woods <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> In the following sentence, would you interpret the term "peacekeepers" as
> meaning "all peacekeepers" or "some peacekeepers"?
>
>     United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in
>     offensive operations.
>
> This is a current debate topic in high school debate. The affirmative side
> would like to limit the scope of the resolution to "some," while the
> negative would like to force the affirmative to argue for "all."
>
> How could each side support their claim? What linguistic theories or
> arguments could be brought into play to support each side?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Woods
>
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>



-- 
nick.carbone at gmail dot com
http://ncarbone.blogspot.com

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/