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/