George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley was clear about the constitutional affirmatives raised by this action.
|
|
The abstentions were counted as "tacit affirmatives" in the now well-established tradition.Schama, p.
|
|
These argument falls under a "fairness" claim. Most arguments will actually be under "education" claims. Affirmatives will claim conditionality is noneducational because it allows negative teams to make bad or inconsistent arguments and then ignore them later. More importantly, it can put the affirmative in a position where certain arguments they make can be turned against them.
|
|
Most affirmatives try to avoid domestic USFG agent counterplans (e.g., if the plan involves Congressional legislation, the negative might counterplan to have the president issue an executive order) by not specifying their agent beyond the United States federal government in their plan text. On international topics, international agent counterplans cannot be similarly avoided, although many consider them object fiat or otherwise theoretically suspect. Some debate theorists (e.g.
|
|
But the ghost of the first one lies between them. To exorcise this ghost, they both act on impulses reaching impromptu decisions that voice deeply held sentiments, which they push out at the time from any detailed analysis. The pretext of marriage gives them the form needed to communicate at a level other than the one using clinical words. This is sexual love where unalloyed emotions bring out the affirmatives which are intellectually negated.
|
|
Sed nullus lapis est homo qui est lapis, quia neque hic neque ille etc. Sed et illam: Quidam homo qui est lapis, non est lapis, falsam esse necesse est, cum impossibile ponat Terence Parsons argues that ancient philosophers did not experience the problem of existential import as only the A and I forms had existential import. : Affirmatives have existential import, and negatives do not. The ancients thus did not see the incoherence of the square as formulated by Aristotle because there was no incoherence to see.
|
|
On February 27, 2002, the Pittsburgh Board of Education voted 6-2 (with one abstention) to approve an application for a five-year charter for City Charter High School contingent on it submitting a plan for educating students, showing it can measure student progress, and 4 other conditions. In March 2003 the board was told by district administrators that the charter school had met these conditions, however the board then failed to approve the charter in a 4–3 vote (with two abstentions). Approval of new charters requires five affirmatives. After hearing arguments a Common Pleas judge ordered the board to approve the charter, despite the board's opposition.
|
|
There are many idioms, such as reduplication (in French, German, and Italian) of affirmatives for emphasis (the German ja ja ja). Furthermore, the mappings are one-to-many in both directions. The German ja has no fewer than 13 English equivalents that vary according to context and usage (yes, yeah, and no when used as an answer; well, all right, so, and now, when used for segmentation; oh, ah, uh, and eh when used an interjection; and do you, will you, and their various inflections when used as a marker for tag questions) for example. Moreover, both ja and doch are frequently used as additional particles for conveying nuanced meaning where, in English, no such particle exists.
|
|