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/