Topicality

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker
The Resolution
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela.
Resolved:
Resolved = Policy/Legislative
In policy-related contexts, resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word resolve, given by Webster is to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as it was resolved by the legislature; It is of similar force to the word enact, which is defined by Bouvier as meaning to establish by law.
Resolved means a determination reached by voting Websters Revised Unabridged 98 (dictionary.com)

Resolved: 5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote ; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money should be appropriated (or, to appropriate no money).
Resolved means to settle formally by voting Websters Law 96 ("resolved." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 01 Jul.
2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved>.) resolve transitive verb 1 : to deal with successfully : clear up <resolve a dispute> 2 a : to declare or decide by formal resolution and vote b : to change by resolution or formal vote <the house resolved itself into a committee> intransitive verb : to form a resolution
Resolved = Firm Decision/Certainty

Resolved means a firm decision American Heritage 2k
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html)
Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision. See synonyms at decide. 3. To decide or express by formal vote.
Resolved implies a specific course of action American Heritage 2k

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html)
INTRANSITIVE VERB:1. To reach a decision or make a determination: resolve on a course of action . 2. To become separated or reduced to constituents. 3. Music To undergo resolution.
Resolved means certainty OED 89 (Oxford English Dictionary, Resolved, Volume 13, p. 725)
a. of the mind, etc.: Freed from doubt or uncertainty, fixed, settled. Obs.
AT: Resolved = Certainty/Immediacy

Resolved doesnt require certainty Websters 9 Merriam Webster 2009
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved)
# Main Entry: 1resolve # Pronunciation: \ri-zlv, -zolv also -zv or -zov\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): resolved; resolving 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult,
deliberate
Resolved doesnt require immediacy Online Plain Text English Dictionary 2009
(http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve) Resolve: To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve on a better course of
life.
Colon
Colon- the business follows it Websters 0 Guide to Grammar and Writing
(http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm)
Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence , begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.
Colon- the second clause elaborates on the first Encarta World Dictionary, 07
(http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861598666)
punctuation mark: the punctuation mark (:) used to divide distinct but related sentence components such as clauses in which the second elaborates on the first , or to introduce a list, quotation, or speech. A colon is sometimes used in U.S. business letters after the salutation. Colons are also used between numbers in statements of proportion or time and Biblical or literary references.
The United States federal government
The
The is used to denote specific persons or things Ammer in 2000 (Christine, renowned linguist & author of 20 popular reference bks, American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th ed. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the)
Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things.
The is used to denote a specific entity American Heritage 00

(Fourth Edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) the1 P (th before a vowel; th before a consonant) def.art. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore.
USFG
USfg is the three branches The Free Dictionary 4(Thefreedictionary.com, April 6 2004, DA 6/21/11, OST)
The executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States
USfg is the three branches USLegal 9(definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government, September 23 2009, DA

6/21/11, OST)
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and checks and balances for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.
National govt, not the states Blacks Law 99 (Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p.703)
A national government that exercises some degree of control over smaller political units that have surrendered some degree of power in exchange for the right to participate in national political matters
Federal government is central government Websters 76

WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED, 1976, p. 833. Federal government. Of or relating to the central government of a nation, having the character of a federation as distinguished from the governments of the constituent unites (as states or provinces).
Should
Should = Ought/Obligation
Should is used to express obligation and expediency Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary 2002 (Merriam-Websters Inc., Tenth Ed.,
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency
Should is ought Dictionary.com 6(Dictionary.com: definitions, 6/3/2006, dictionary.reference.com, DA 6/21/11, OST)

must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency ): You should not do that.
Should indicates a desirable condition Oxford 10(Oxford dictionaries online, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should, May 22 2010,
6/20/11, OST)
1 used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions: he should have been careful I think we should trust our people more you shouldn't have gone indicating a desirable or expected state: by now pupils should be able to read with a large degree of independence used to give or ask advice or suggestions: you should go back to bed what should I wear? (I should) used to give advice: I should hold out if I were you.
Should = Immediate/Certain
Should means immediate requirement Summer 94 (Justice, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant,
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14) 4 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16 5 Nisi prius orders should be so construed as to give effect to every words and every part of the text, with a view to carrying out the evident intent of the judge's direction.17 The order's language ought not to be considered abstractly. The actual meaning intended by the document's signatory should be derived from the context in which the phrase to be interpreted is used.18 When applied to the May 18 memorial, these told canons impel my conclusion that the judge doubtless intended his ruling as an in praesenti resolution of Dollarsaver's quest for judgment n.o.v. Approval of all counsel plainly appears on the face of the critical May 18 entry which is [885 P.2d 1358] signed by the judge.19 True minutes20 of a court neither call for nor bear the approval of the parties' counsel nor the judge's signature. To reject out of hand the view that in this context "should" is impliedly followed by the customary, "and the same hereby is", makes the court once again revert to medieval notions of ritualistic formalism now so thoroughly condemned in national jurisprudence and long abandoned by the statutory policy of this State. [Continues To Footnote] 14 In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).
Should isnt Mandatory

Should isnt mandatory Taylor and Howard, 05 - Resources for the Future, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa
(Michael and Julie, Investing in Africa's future: U.S. Agricultural development assistance for SubSaharan Africa, 9/12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-USagric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf) Other legislated DA earmarks in the FY2005 appropriations bill are smaller and more targeted: plant biotechnology research and development ($25 million), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program ($20 million), womens leadership capacity ($15 million), the International Fertilizer Development Center ($2.3 million), and clean water treatment ($2 million). Interestingly, in the wording of the bill, Congress uses the term shall in connection with only two of these eight earmarks; the others say that USAID should make the prescribed amount available. The difference between shall and should may have legal significanceone is clearly mandatory while the other is a strong admonitionbut it makes little practical difference in USAIDs need to comply with the congressional directive to the best of its ability.
Should isnt mandatoryits a persuasive recommendation Words and Phrases, 2002 (Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By
Thomson West. P. 370) Cal.App. 5 Dist. 1976. Term should, as used in statutory provision that motion to suppress search warrant should first be heard by magistrate who issued warrant, is used in regular, persuasive sense, as recommendation, and is thus not mandatory but permissive. Wests Ann.Pen Code, 1538.5(b).--Cuevas v. Superior Court, 130 Cal. Rptr. 238, 58 Cal.App.3d 406 ----Searches 191.
Should means desirable or recommended, not mandatory Words and Phrases, 2002 (Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By
Thomson West. P. 372-373) Or. 1952. Where safety regulation for sawmill industry providing that a two by two inch guard rail should be installed at extreme outer edge of walkways adjacent to sorting tables was immediately preceded by other regulations in which word shall instead of should was used, and word should did not appear to be result of inadvertent use in particular regulation, use of word should was intended to convey idea that particular precaution involved was desirable and recommended, but not mandatory. ORS 654.005 et seq.----Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 P.2d 839, 193 Or. 556.--Labor & Emp. 2857
Should isnt mandatory. Words and Phrases, 2002 (Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By
Thomson West. P. 369) C.A.6 (Tenn.) 2001. Word should, in most contexts, is precatory, not mandatory. ----U.S. v. Rogers, 14 Fed.Appx. 303.----Statut227
Should doesnt require certainty Blacks Law 79 (Blacks Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, p. 1237)
Should. The past tense of shall; ordinarily implying duty or obligation; although usually no more than an obligation of propriety or expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby distinguishing it from ought. It is not normally synonymous with may, and although often interchangeable with the word would, it does not ordinarily express certainty as will sometimes does.
Should = Expectation
Should is likely The Free Dictionary 4(Thefreedictionary.com, January 9 2004, DA 6/20/11, OST)
Used to express probability or expectation
Should means what is expected Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary 2002 (Merriam-Websters Inc., Tenth Ed.,
Used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected
Should describes what is probable Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 8 (should, 2008,
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/should?view=uk) should modal verb (3rd sing. should) 1 used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. 2 used to indicate what is probable. 3 formal expressing the conditional mood. 4 used in a clause with that after a main clause describing feelings. 5 used in a clause with that expressing purpose. 6 (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance. 7 (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope.
Should = Conditional
Should is conditional Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 2002 (Merriam-Websters Inc., Tenth Ed.,
Used in auxiliary function to express condition
Should = Past Tense of Shall

Should means the past tense of shall Collins English Dictionary 09 (Collins English Dictionary, tenth edition, 2009, should, p. 1515)
Should. Vb. The past tense of shall: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory (You should go) or to form the subjunctive mood with I or we (I should like to see you; if I should be late, go without me). See also shall.
AT: Should is Past Tense of Shall

Traditional rules regarding use of shall are now archaic. Should means duty or obligation. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2000
(4th Edition, p. 1612) Usage Note Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the use of should and would are largely ignored in modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person to express conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second and third persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for should, however. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he) should decide to go. Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go. On the other hand, would is used to express volition or promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call your attention to an oversight. Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than should. Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction shouldve.
Should only means the past tense of shall when used as a putative auxiliary verb. In the context of the resolution, it means ought to. The Grammar Logs 97
(#29. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs/grammarlogs29.htm, Sept. 26 Accessed 7/7/13) Question The Discrepancies among Shall, Will, Should & Would I am always told that "should" is the past tense of "shall", just like "would" is the past tense of "will". I believe that although the latter may be true, the former can never be true. "Should" is a normative term (a suggestion, "ought to"). A1. We should abolish this rule (normative advice). A2. We shall abolish this rule (we have decided/are going to, = "will"). Clearly, A1 is NOT the past tense of A2. Thus, in terms of meaning, "shall" and "will" should go together ("shall" for the pronouns "I" and "we", and "will" for others), and "should" should stand alone, or go with words like, "ought to". Consider the following: B1. If I stop now, I SHALL fail. B2. If he stops now, he WILL fail. B3. If I stopped yesterday, I WOULD fail.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker Thus, "would" should be the past tense of both "will" and "shall", instead of "should" being the past tense of "shall". The past tense of "should" should be "should have": C1. You should scold him now. C2. You should have scolded him just now. Now, under what case is SHOULD the past tense of SHALL, which most dictionaries contend? Source & Date of Question Singapore 26 September 1997 Grammar's Response In "should have scolded" you're using should as part of an auxiliary string to create a past tense verb, so that doesn't really count. As a putative auxiliary verb, however, should is more clearly the past tense of shall: I was extremely upset that he should earn more money than my brother.
Substantially
Substantially- General Definitions

"Substantial" is of real worth or considerable value- this is the usual meaning
Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A, p. 458)
D.S.C. 1966.
The word substantial within Civil Rights Act providing that a place is a public accommodation if a substantial portion
of food which is served has moved in commerce must be construed in light of its usual and customary meaning, that is,
something of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable, something worthwhile as distinguished from
something without value or merely nominal
Substantial means considerable in quantity Merriam-Webster 2003 (www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: substantial b : considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage>
Substantially means including the material or essential part Words and Phrases 05 (v. 40B, p. 329)
Okla. 1911. Substantially means in substance; in the main; essentially; by including the material or essential part.
Substantially means to large extent Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
To a great extent or degree
Substantially means strongly Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
In a strong substantial way
Substantially means to have importance Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent
Substantially means ample Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Ample; sustaining
Substantially means relating to Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Of, relating to, or having substance; material
Substantial" means in the main Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A, p. 469)
Ill.App.2 Dist. 1923 Substantial means in substance, in the main , essential, including material or essential parts
Substantially- %
Substantial increase is at least 30% Bryson, 2001, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals Federal Circuit
(265 F.3d 1371; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20590; 60 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1272, 9/19, lexis)
The term "to increase substantially" in claim 1 of the '705 patent refers to the claimed increase achieved by the invention in the relative productivity of the catalyst used in the Fischer-Tropsch process. The specification defines "substantially increased" catalyst activity or productivity as an increase of at least about 30%, more preferably an increase of about 50%, and still more preferably an increase of about 75%. '705 patent, col. 1, ll. 59-63. Based on that language from the specification, the trial court found, and the parties agree, that the term "to increase substantially" requires an increase of at least about 30% in the relative productivity of the catalyst. Notwithstanding that numerical boundary, the trial court found the phrase "to increase substantially" to be indefinite because the court concluded that there were two possible ways to calculate the increase in productivity, the subtraction method and the division method, and the patent did not make clear which of those ways was used in the claim.
Substantial is 50%- two examples Smythe 10

(Tom, engineer,http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/Department_Programs/Flood_Management/ Substantial_Damage_Improvement.htm, 6/15/2010, DA 6/21/11, OST) "Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the
structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. "Substantial improvement" means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other proposed new development of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which
have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed.
Substantially is at least 90% Words and Phrases, 2005 (v. 40B, p. 329)
N.H. 1949. The word substantially as used in provision of Unemployment Compensation Act that experience rating of an employer may be transferred to an employing unit which acquires the organization, trade, or business, or substantially all of the assets thereof, is an ela stic term which does not include a definite, fixed amount of percentage, and the transfer does not have to be 100 per cent but cannot be less than 90 per cent in the ordinary situation. R.L. c 218, 6, subd. F, as added by Laws 1945, c.138, 16.
Substantial increase is 50 to 100 percent UNEP 2 ( United nations environmental program, www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/584.htm, October
1 2002, DA6/21/11, OST)
Change in selected pressures on natural ecosystems 2002-32. For the ecosystem quality component, see the explanation of the Natural Capital Index. Values for the cumulative pressures were derived as described under Natural Capital Index. The maps show the relative increase or decrease in pressure between 2002 and 2032. 'No change' means less than 10 per cent change in pressure over the scenario period; small increase or decrease means between 10 and 50 per cent change; substantial increase or decrease
means 50 to 100 per cent change; strong increase means more than doubling of pressure. Areas which switch between natural
and domesticated land uses are recorded separately.
Substantially must be 2 percent Words & Phrases 60

'Substantial" means "of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable." Bequest to charitable institution, making 1/48 of expenditures in state, held exempt from taxation; such expenditures constituting "substantial" part of its activities. Tax Commission of Ohio v. American Humane Education Soc., 181 N.E. 557, 42 Ohio App. 4.
Substantial should be defined as 40 percent best avoids vagueness Schwartz 4 (Arthur, Lawyer Schwartz + Goldberg, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1609, Lexis)
In the opinion below, the Tenth Circuit suggested that a percentage figure would be a way to avoid vagueness issues. (Pet. App., at 13-14) Indeed, one of the Amici supporting the City in this case, the American Planning Association, produced a publication that actually makes a recommendation of a percentage figure that should be adopted by municipalities in establishing zoning [*37] regulations for adult businesses. n8 The APA's well researched report recommended that the terms "substantial" and "significant" be quantified at 40 percent for floor space or inventory of a business in the definition of adult business. n9 (Resp. Br. App., at 15-16)
Substantially- Quantitative Best

The qualitative definitions of substantially are vague and unlimiting Stark 97 (Stephen J., Key Words And Tricky Phrases: An Analysis Of Patent Drafter's Attempts To Circumvent The Language Of 35 U.S.C.,
Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Fall, 5 J. Intell. Prop. L. 365, Lexis) 1. Ordinary Meaning. First, words in a patent are to be given their ordinary meaning unless otherwise defined. 30 However, what if a particular word has multiple meanings? For example, consider the word "substantial." The Webster dictionary gives eleven different definitions of the word substantial. 31 Additionally, there are another two definitions specifically provided for the adverb "substantially." 32 Thus, the "ordinary meaning" is not clear. The first definition of the word "substantial" given by the Webster's Dictionary is "of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc." 33 Supposing that this is the precise definition that the drafter had in mind when drafting the patent, the meaning of "ample or considerable amount" appears amorphous. This could
have one of at least the following interpretations: (1) almost all, (2) more than half, or (3) barely enough to do the job. Therefore, the use of a term, such as "substantial," which usually has a very ambiguous meaning, makes the scope of protection particularly hard to determine .
Substantially- Qualitative Best

Substantial means considerable in amount, not an arbitrary percentage. Prost 4 (Judge United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Committee For Fairly Traded
Venezuelan Cement v. United States, 6-18, http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1016.html) The URAA and the SAA neither amend nor refine the language of 1677(4)(C). In fact, they merely suggest, without disqualifying other alternatives, a clearly higher/substantial proportion approach. Indeed, the SAA specifically mentions that no precise mathematical formula or benchmark proportion is to be used for a dumping concentration analysis. SAA at 860 (citations omitted); see also Venez. Cement, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 1329-30. Furthermore, as the Court of International Trade noted, the SAA emphasizes that the Commission retains the discretion to determine concentration of imports on a case-by-case basis. SAA at 860. Finally, the definition of the word substantial undercuts the CFTVCs argument. The word substantial generally means considerable in amount, value or worth. Websters Third New International Dictionary 2280 (1993). It does not imply a specific number or cut-off. What may be substantial in one situation may not be in another situation. The very breadth of the term substantial undercuts the CFTVCs argument that Congress spoke clearly in establishing a standard for the Commissions regional antidumping and countervailing duty analyses. It therefore supports the conclusion that the Commission is owed deference in its interpretation of substantial proportion. The Commission clearly embarked on its analysis having been given considerable leeway to interpret a particularly broad term.
Common definitions are more predictable, because substantially is not a legal term of art. Arkush 2 (David, A.B.. Washington University, 1999: J.D. Candidate. Harvard Law School. 2003.,
Preserving "Catalyst" Attorneys' Fees Under the Freedom of Information Act in the Wake of Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Winter, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol37_1/arkush.pdf Accessed 7/10/12) Plaintiffs should argue that the term "substantially prevail" is not a term of art because if considered a term of art, resort to Black's 7th produces a definition of "prevail" that could be interpreted adversely to plaintiffs. 99 It is commonly accepted that words that are not legal terms of art should be accorded their ordinary, not their legal, meaning, 100 and ordinary-usage dictionaries provide FOIA fee claimants with helpful arguments. The Supreme Court has already found favorable, temporally relevant definitions of the word "substantially" in ordinary dictionaries: "Substantially" suggests "considerable" or "specified to a large degree." See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2280 (1976) (defining "substantially" as "in a substantial manner" and "substantial" as "considerable in amount, value, or worth" and "being that specified to a large degree or in the main"); see also 17 Oxford English Dictionary 66-67 (2d ed. 1989) ("substantial": "relating to or proceeding from the essence of a thing; essential"; "of ample or considerable amount, quantity or dimensions"). 101
Substantially- Contextual Definitions Best

Substantially must be interpreted in context Devinsky 2 (Paul, Is Claim "Substantially" Definite? Ask Person of Skill in the Art, IP Update, 5(11), November,
http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm) In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court, by failing to look beyond the intrinsic claim construction evidence to consider what a person of skill in the art would understand in a "technologic context," erroneously concluded the term "substantially" made a claim fatally indefinite . Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related to an improved push rod for an internal combustion engine. The patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has "substantially constant wall thickness" throughout the rod and rounded seats at the tips. The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" was not supported in the specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite. The district court recognized that the use of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in a particular "technologic context" be found solely in intrinsic evidence: "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field of the invention." Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that "resolution of any
ambiguity arising from the claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention." The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instruction that "[t]he question is not whether the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but how the phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading the patent documents."
Substantially- Without Material Qualifications

Substantially means without material qualifications Blacks Law Dictionary 1991 (p. 1024)
Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification .
Material is relevant and significant Hill and Hill 2005 (Gerald, practiced law for more than four decade, and Kathleen, writer, publisher and newspaper columnist,
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/material)
material adj. 1) relevant and significant in a lawsuit, as in "material evidence" as distinguished from totally irrelevant or of such minor importance that the court will either ignore it, rule it immaterial if objected to, or not allow lengthy
testimony upon such a matter. 2) "material breach" of a contract is a valid excuse by the other party not to perform. However, an insignificant divergence from the terms of the contract is not a material breach.
Qualification is a limiting modification Merriam-Webster Online 2011

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualification) 1 : a restriction in meaning or application : a limiting modification <this statement stands without qualification>
Substantially = Not Imaginary

Substantially is not imaginary Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
True or real; not imaginary
"Substantial" means actually existing, real, or belonging to substance

Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A) p. 460
Ala. 1909. Substantial means belonging to substance; actually existing; real; *** not seeming or imaginary; not elusive; real; solid; true; veritable
Substantially = Transparent, Not Concealed

Substantial requires transparency- cant be concealed Words and Phrases 64 (40W&P 759)
The words" outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive," in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain: absolute: real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to fonn; actually existing; true; not including, admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive.
Aff- Substantial Flexible/Imprecise

Substantial is inherently flexible and imprecise Mellinkoff 92 (David, Law Professor UCLA, 1992 (Mellinkoffs Dictionary of American Legal Usage, p. 626).
substantial is as flexible in the law as in ordinary English . That is its reason for continued existence in the law. Long use of substantial in combinations, e.g., substantial evidence, can produce impression of precision, which is lacking. The word is an alert! What substantial fastens itself to becomes infected with substantials flexibility. A place for discretion.
Increase
Increase- Make Greater

Increase is to make larger American Heritage Dictionary 1(American Heritage Dictionary www.answers.com/topic/increase ,2/1/2001 , DA 6/20/11,
OST)
To become greater or larger. To multiply; reproduce.
Increase is to become greater in size, number or intensity Merriam-Webster 5(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/increase, dictionary, November
13 2005, DA 6/21/11, OST)
to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity )
Increase is to add to Dictionary.com 6(Dictionary.com: definitions, 11/3/2006, dictionary.reference.com, DA 6/21/11, OST)

To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to: to increase taxes.
Increase means add duration to Word and Phrases 8 (vol. 20B, p. 265)
Me. 1922. Within Workmens Compensation Act, 36, providing for review of any agreement, award, findings, or decree, and that member of Commission may increase, diminish, or discontinue compensation, an increase may include an extension of the
time of the award. Graneys Case, 118 A. 369, 121 Me.500.Work Comp 2049.
Increase is Preexisting
Increase must be of something that already exists Buckley 6 (Jeremiah, Attorney, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al,
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdf)
First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word increase is to make something greater, which it believed should not be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged. 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because increase means to make something greater, there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edos actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an increase occurred. Congress could have provided that ad-verse action in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an increase. That definitional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) (*a+ defin-ition which declares what a term means . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words existing or applied for, Congress intended that an increase in any charge for insurance must apply to all insurance transactions from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy. 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words exist-ing or applied for in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a cancellation, reduction, or change in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an alreadyexisting policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term increase also should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it) (citation omitted).
Increase implies pre-existence Brown 3 (US Federal Judge District Court of Oregon (Elena Mark and Paul Gustafson, Plaintiffs, v. Valley Insurance Company and Valley
Property and Casualty, Defendants, 7-17, Lexis) FCRA does not define the term "increase." The plain and ordinary meaning of the verb "to increase" is to make
something greater or larger. 4 Merriam-Webster's [**22] Collegiate Dictionary 589 (10th ed. 1998). The "something" that is
increased in the statute is the "charge for any insurance." The plain and common meaning of the noun "charge" is "the price demanded for something." Id. at 192. Thus, the statute plainly means an insurer takes adverse action if the insurer makes greater (i.e., larger) the price demanded for insurance. An insurer cannot "make greater" something that did not exist previously . The statutory definition of adverse action, therefore, clearly anticipates an insurer must have made an initial charge or demand for payment before the insurer can increase that charge. In other words, an insurer cannot increase the charge for insurance unless the insurer previously set and demanded payment of the premium for that insured's insurance [**23] coverage at a lower price.
Increase means to add to what already exists. Corpus Juris Secundum 44

Corpus Juris Secundum, 1944, vol. 42, p. 546 Increase As a Verb. The term presupposes the existence in some measure, or to some extent, of something which may be enlarged, connotes a change or alteration in the original, and has been defined as meaning to extend or enlarge in size, extent, quantity, number, intensity, value, substance, etc.
Increase Not Preexisting

Increase doesnt require prior existence Reinhardt 5 (U.S. Judge for the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Stephen, JASON RAY REYNOLDS;
MATTHEW RAUSCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees., lexis) Specifically, we must decide whether charging a higher price for initial insurance than the insured would otherwise have been charged because of information in a consumer credit report constitutes an "increase in any charge" within the meaning of FCRA. First, we examine the definitions of "increase" and "charge." Hartford Fire contends that, limited to their ordinary definitions, these words apply only when a consumer has previously been charged for insurance and that charge has thereafter been increased by the insurer. The phrase, "has previously been charged," as used by Hartford, refers not only to a rate that the consumer has previously paid for insurance but also to a rate that the consumer has previously been quoted, even if that rate was increased [**23] before the consumer made any payment. Reynolds disagrees, asserting that, under [*1091] the ordinary definition of the term, an increase in a charge also
occurs whenever an insurer charges a higher rate than it would otherwise have charged because of any factor--such as adverse credit information, age, or driving record 8 --regardless of whether the customer was previously charged some other rate. According to Reynolds, he was charged an increased rate because of his credit rating when he was
compelled to pay a rate higher than the premium rate because he failed to obtain a high insurance score. Thus, he argues, the definitions of "increase" and "charge" encompass the insurance companies' practice. Reynolds is correct. Increase" means to make something greater. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The action, process, or fact of becoming or making greater; augmentation, growth, enlargement, extension."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) (defining "increase" as "growth, enlargement, etc[.]"). "Charge" means the price demanded for goods or services. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The price required or demanded for service rendered, or (less usually) for goods supplied."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) ("The cost or price of an article, service, etc."). Nothing in the definition of these words implies that the term "increase in any charge for" should be
limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.
Increase = Net Increase

Must be a net increase Rogers 5 (Judge New York, et al., Petitioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et
al., Intervenors, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12378, **; 60 ERC (BNA) 1791, 6/24, Lexis) [**48] Statutory Interpretation. HN16While the CAA defines a "modification" as any physical or operational change that "increases" emissions, it is silent on how to calculate such "increases" in emissions. 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(4). According to government petitioners, the lack of a statutory definition does not render the term "increases" ambiguous, but merely compels the court to give the term its "ordinary meaning." See Engine Mfrs.Ass'nv.S.Coast AirQualityMgmt.Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 124 S. Ct. 1756, 1761, 158 L. Ed. 2d 529(2004); Bluewater Network, 370 F.3d at 13; Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Glickman, 342 U.S. App. D.C. 7, 215 F.3d 7, 10 [*23] (D.C. Cir. 2000). Relying
on two "real world" analogies, government petitioners contend that the ordinary meaning of "increases" requires the baseline to be calculated from a period immediately preceding the change. They maintain, for example, that in
determining whether a high-pressure weather system "increases" the local temperature, the relevant baseline is the temperature immediately preceding the arrival of the weather system, not the temperature five or ten years ago. Similarly, [**49] in determining whether a new engine "increases" the value of a car, the relevant baseline is the value of the car immediately preceding the replacement of the engine, not the value of the car five or ten years ago when the engine was in perfect condition.
Its
Its- Possessive
Its implies possession Corpus Juris Secundum, 1981 (Volume 48A, p. 247)
Its. The possessive case of the neuter pronoun it. Also, as an adjective, meaning of or belonging to it. Sometimes referred to as the possessive word, but it does not necessarily imply ownership in fee, but may indicate merely a right to use.
Its is an attributive adjective showing possession Random House Dictionary, 1966 (p. 758)
Its (pronoun). being so late.)
The possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective : The book has lost its jacket. Im sorry about its
Its means belonging to it or that thing Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 (second edition, online)
Its A. As adj. poss. pron. Of or belonging to it, or that thing (L. ejus); also refl., Of or belonging to itself, its own (L. suus). The reflexive is often more fully its own, for which in earlier times the own, it own, were used: see OWN.
Its is belonging to The Free Dictionary 5(Thefreedictionary.com, June 25 2005, DA 6/21/11, OST)
a. of, belonging to, or associated in some way with it its left rear wheel b. (as pronoun) each town claims its is the best
Its is possessive Merriam-Webster 11(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its, dictionary, June 1 2011, DA

6/21/11, OST)
of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action
Economic Engagement
General Definitions
EE = Interdependence to Change Behavior

Economic engagement promotes interdependence as a long term strategy of gradual change. Mastanduno, Professor of Govt @ Dartmouth, 2001 (Michael,Economic Engagement
Strategies: Theory and Practice, June, Paper prepared for Interdependence and Conflict, edited by Edward Mansfield and Brian Pollins, http://www.scribd.com/doc/114249238/Economic-EngagementStrategies-Theory-and-Practice Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) The basic causal logic of economic engagement, and the emphasis on domestic politics, can be traced to Hirschman. He viewed economic engagement as a long-term, transformative strategy. As one state gradually expands economic interaction with its target, the resulting (asymmetrical) interdependence creates vested interests within the target society and government. The beneficiaries of interdependence become addicted to it, and they protect their interests by pressuring the government to accommodate the source of interdependence. Economic engagement is a form of structural linkage; it is a means to get other states to want what you want, rather than to do what you want. The causal chain runs from economic interdependence through domestic political change to foreign policy accommodation.
Economic engagement is the expansion of economic interdependence as a tool of statecraft. Mastanduno, Professor of Govt @ Dartmouth, 2001 (Michael,Economic Engagement
Strategies: Theory and Practice, June, Paper prepared for Interdependence and Conflict, edited by Edward Mansfield and Brian Pollins, http://www.scribd.com/doc/114249238/Economic-EngagementStrategies-Theory-and-Practice Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) Much of the renewed attention in political science to the question of interdependence and conflict focuses at the systemic level, on arguments and evidence linking the expansion of economic exchange among states on the one hand to the exacerbation of international conflict or the facilitation of international cooperation on the other. The approach taken in this contribution focuses instead at the state level, on the expansion of economic interdependence as a tool of statecraft. Under what circumstances does the cultivation of economic ties, i.e., the fostering of economic interdependence as a conscious state strategy, lead to important and predictable changes in the foreign policy behavior of a target state? Students of economic statecraft refer to this strategy variously as economic engagement, economic inducement, economic diplomacy, positive sanctions, positive economic linkage, or the use of economic carrots instead of sticks. Critics of the strategy call it economic appeasement.
Engagement means use of trade and finance to influence behavior of other states. Borer, Professor @ the Naval Postgraduate School, 2004
(Douglas A, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy & Strategy, CHAPTER 12 PROBLEMS OF ECONOMIC STATECRAFT: RETHINKING ENGAGEMENT, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/strategy2004/12borer.pdf Accessed 7/6/13 GAL)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker Engagement serves as a core policy doctrine of U.S. national security strategy in the twenty-first century.1 In practice, implementing engagement relies heavily on the manipulation on the economic elements of national power, primarily in the areas of trade and finance, to influence the behavior of other states. Engagement uses economic interdependence, or mutual dependence, to create ties that, in theory, should bind states together. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye suggest that economic interdependence should be understood in terms of the power to influence, or the effects on each state of their trade linkages. Indeed, as many scholars have indicated, states have long recognized the truth that power generally flows from asymmetrical (or imbalanced) interdependence.2 In keeping with this tradition, Keohane and Nye stress that when planning an effective diplomatic strategy, It is asymmetries in dependence that are most likely to provide sources of influence for actors in their dealings with one another. Less dependent actors can often use the interdependent relationship as a source of power in bargaining over an issue and perhaps to affect other issues.3 At its core, economic statecraft is founded on the principle of asymmetrical power.
Economic engagement is expanding economic ties to change behavior of an adversary. Kahler, Professor of Political Science at UC San Diego and Kastner, Professor of Govt and Politics @ U of Maryland, 6
(Miles and Scott, Strategic Uses of Interdependence, www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/kastner/KahlerKastner.doc , Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) Economic engagementa policy of deliberately expanding economic ties with an adversary in order to change the behavior of the target state and effect an improvement in bilateral political relationsis the subject of growing, but still limited, interest in the international relations literature. The bulk of the work on economic statecraft continues to focus on coercive policies such as economic sanctions. The emphasis on negative forms of economic statecraft is not without justification: the use of economic sanctions is widespread and well-documented, and several quantitative studies have shown that adversarial relations between countries tend to correspond to reduced, rather than enhanced, levels of trade (Gowa 1994; Pollins 1989). At the same time, however, relatively little is known about how widespread strategies of economic engagement actually are: scholars disagree on this point, in part because no database cataloging instances of positive economic statecraft exists (Mastanduno 2003). Furthermore, beginning with the classic work of Hirschman (1945), most studies in this regard have focused on policies adopted by great powers. But engagement policies adopted by South Korea and the other two states examined in this study, Singapore and Taiwan, demonstrate that engagement is not a strategy limited to the domain of great power politics; instead, it may be more widespread than previously recognized.
Engagement = Non-Coercion/Positive Incentives

Engagement means positive incentives to alter another states behavior. Borer, Professor @ the Naval Postgraduate School, 2004
(Douglas A, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy & Strategy, CHAPTER 12 PROBLEMS OF ECONOMIC STATECRAFT: RETHINKING ENGAGEMENT, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/strategy2004/12borer.pdf Accessed 7/6/13 GAL) The policy of engagement refers to the use of non-coercive means, or positive incentives, by one state to alter the elements of another states behavior. As such, some scholars have categorized engagement as a form of appeasement.21 However, I concur with the view articulated by Randall Schweller that, while engagement can be classified in generic terms as a form of appeasement, an important qualitative difference exists between the two: Engagement is more than appeasement, he says: It encompasses any attempt to socialize the dissatisfied power into acceptance of the established order. In practice engagement may be distinguished from other policies not so much by its goals but by its means: it relies on the promise of rewards rather than the threat of punishment to influence the targets behavior. . . . The policy succeeds if such concessions convert the revolutionary state into a status quo power with a stake in the stability of the system. . . . Engagement is most likely to succeed when the established powers are strong enough to mix concessions with credible threats, to use sticks as well as carrots. . . . Otherwise, concessions will signal weakness that emboldens the aggressor to demand more.22
Engagement means positive incentives to shape a target countrys behavior. Haass Director of Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, and O'Sullivan, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, 2000 (Richard and Meghan, "Terms of Engagement:
Alternatives to Punitive Policies," http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) The term engagement was popularised in the early 1980s amid controversy about the Reagan administrations policy of constructive engagement towards South Africa. However, the term itself remains a source of confusion. Except in the few instances where the US has sought to isolate a regime or country, America arguably engages states and actors all the time simply by interacting with them. To be a meaningful subject of analysis, the term engagement must refer to something more specific than a policy of non-isolation. As used in this article, engagement refers to a foreign-policy strategy which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives. Certainly, it does not preclude the simultaneous use of other foreign-policy instruments such as sanctions or military force: in practice, there is often considerable overlap of strategies, particularly when the termination or lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement. Yet the distinguishing feature of American engagement strategies is their reliance on the extension or provision of incentives to shape the behaviour of countries with which the US has important disagreements.
Economic engagement means positive incentives, as opposed to negative sanctions. Mastanduno, Professor of Govt @ Dartmouth, 2001 (Michael,Economic Engagement
Strategies: Theory and Practice, June, Paper prepared for Interdependence and Conflict, edited by
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker Edward Mansfield and Brian Pollins, http://www.scribd.com/doc/114249238/Economic-EngagementStrategies-Theory-and-Practice Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) This is problematic in the sense that even a cursory examination suggests that positive economic measures have the potential to be as effective, if not more so, than negative ones. Threats and coercion usually inspire resentment and resistance in a target state; rewards and inducements are more likely to prompt a willingness to bargain. Negative sanctions tend to produce the rally around the flag effect: as Fidel Castros Cuba and Saddam Husseins Iraq demonstrate, leaders can often mobilize internal political support for their regimes by pointing to the existence of an external threat. Economic engagement strategies do not inspire this type of patriotic coalescence in the target country. Negative sanctions typically require multilateral support in order to be effective; economic engagement can benefit from multilateral support but can also work unilaterally. Finally, negative sanctions, unlike positive measures, carry the risk of escalation to more costly measures. If sanctions fail, leaders face the choice of accepting failure or escalating to military means of statecraft.
EE = Distinct from Military/Political/Cultural Engagement

Economic engagement is distinct from other forms, like military, political, or cultural engagement. Haass Director of Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, and O'Sullivan, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, 2000 (Richard and Meghan, "Terms of Engagement:
Alternatives to Punitive Policies," http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans and economic aid.3 Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in todays global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders or the termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of international military educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a countrys armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign military officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails building people-topeople contacts. Funding nongovernmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible incentives used in the form of engagement.
Engagement = Opposite of Isolation/Containment

Engagement is the opposite of isolation or disengagement Capie and Evans 2002 (David Capie is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow @ Institute of International
Relations, Liu Center for Study of Global Issues, U of British Columbia, Vancouver. Paul Evans is Professor and Director of the Program on Canada-Asia Policy Studies, The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon, p. 110-111)
In the wider literature on security, engagement is used in a looser sense. First it is regularly employed to describe a state's attitude or posture towards the world at large, or sometimes towards a particular region. While this usage most commonly refers to the disposition of the United States, it has also been used to describe other states' attitudes. In this context engagement is often defined by what it is not. It is not "isolationism" or "disengagement". Speaking soon after the Clinton administration came to power, National Security Adviser Tony Lake described the "imperative" of continued U.S. engagement in world affairs. He gave as examples the United States' role in the Middle-East peace process; its role in Haiti; its relations with Russia and Japan; its role in the Group of Seven (G7); as well as in Somalia and Bosnia. Engagement is closer to the school of American foreign policy that usually falls under the label "internationalism". John Ruggie has said that American Presidents from the turn of the century have "sought to devise strategies of international engagement for the United States. They have differed little about why such engagement was deemed necessary; differences lie in their preferred means toward that end."11
Engagement is contrasted with containment or isolation Capie and Evans 2002 (David Capie is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow @ Institute of International
Relations, Liu Center for Study of Global Issues, U of British Columbia, Vancouver. Paul Evans is Professor and Director of the Program on Canada-Asia Policy Studies, The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon, p. 111-112)
Second, engagement is sometimes used in a slightly narrower sense to describe the political relationship between specific states. Here there are two distinctive usages: first, engagement can be described as a kind of loosely defined association. The example that has received the most attention in the literature on Asia-Pacific security is that of the United States' engagement of China. In this sense, engagement connotes a relationship of dialogue and involvement and is often contrasted with "containment" or "isolation".14 Nye has said "the attitude that 'engagement' implies is important." He claims the United States' decision to engage China "means that [it] has rejected the argument that conflict is inevitable".15 A related use of engagement is to describe formal state policies or strategies. In the literature, with this particular' kind of usage, the concepts are often capitalized: for example, the Clinton administration's "Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement" and policy of "Comprehensive Engagement" with China. While such policies sometimes go by similar or even the same names they, unhelpfully, can often be very different in content. For example, contrast the constructive engagement policy of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as it applies to Myanmar, with some American usages of the term referring to China (see below).
Conditional/Unconditional
EE- Can be Conditional or Unconditional

Economic engagement includes both explicit quid pro quos and unconditional strategies. Kahler, Professor of Political Science at UC San Diego and Kastner, Professor of Govt and Politics @ U of Maryland, 6
(Miles and Scott, Strategic Uses of Interdependence, www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/kastner/KahlerKastner.doc , Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) Scholars have usefully distinguished between two types of economic engagement: conditional policies that require an explicit quid-pro-quo on the part of the target country, and policies that are unconditional. Conditional policies, sometimes called linkage or economic carrots, are the inverse of economic sanctions. Instead of threatening a target country with a sanction absent a change in policy, conditional engagement policies promise increased economic flows in exchange for policy change. Drezners (1999/2000) analysis of conditional economic inducements yields a set of highly plausible expectations concerning when conditional strategies are likely to be employed, and when they are likely to succeed. Specifically, he suggests that reasons exist to believe, a priori, that policies of conditional engagement will be less prevalent than economic sanctions. First, economic coercion is costly if it fails (sanctions are only carried out if the target country fails to change policy), while conditional engagement is costly if it succeeds (economic payoffs are delivered only if the target country does change policy). Second, states may be reluctant to offer economic inducements with adversaries with whom they expect long-term conflict, as this may undermine their resolve in the eyes of their opponent while also making the opponent stronger. Third, the potential for market failure in an anarchic international setting looms large: both the initiating and the target states must be capable of making a credible commitment to uphold their end of the bargain. These factors lead Drezner to hypothesize that the use of economic carrots is most likely to occur and succeed between democracies (because democracies are better able to make credible commitments than non-democracies), within the context of international regimes (because such regimes reduce the transactions costs of market exchange), and, among adversaries, only after coercive threats are first used. Unconditional engagement strategies are more passive in that they do not include a specific quid-pro-quo. Rather, countries deploy economic links with an adversary in the hopes that economic interdependence itself will, over time, effect change in the targets foreign policy behavior and yield a reduced threat of military conflict at the bilateral level. How increased commercial and/or financial integration at the bilateral level might yield an improved bilateral political environment is not obvious. While most empirical studies on the subject find that increased economic ties tend to be associated with a reduced likelihood of military violence, no consensus exists regarding how such effects are realized. At a minimum, two causal pathways exist that state leaders might seek to exploit by pursuing a policy of unconditional engagement: economic interdependence can act as a constraint on the foreign policy behavior of the target state, and economic interdependence can act as a transforming agent that helps to reshape the goals of the target state.
Engagement can be conditional quid pro quos or unconditional with no explicit reciprocity. Haass Director of Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, and O'Sullivan, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, 2000 (Richard and Meghan, "Terms of Engagement:
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker Alternatives to Punitive Policies," http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) Many different types of engagement strategies exist, depending on who is engaged, the kind of incentives employed and the sorts of objectives pursued. Engagement may be conditional when it entails a negotiated series of exchanges, such as where the US extends positive inducements for changes undertaken by the target country. Or engagement may be unconditional if it offers modifications in US policy towards a country without the explicit expectation that a reciprocal act will follow. Generally, conditional engagement is geared towards a government; unconditional engagement works with a countrys civil society or private sector in the hopes of promoting forces that will eventually facilitate cooperation.
Incentives strategies include BOTH conditional quid pro quos and unconditional actions, with no explicit expectation of reciprocity.
Cortright 97 (David, president of the Fourth Freedom Forum in Goshen, Indiana, and fellow at the
Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, The Price of Peace: Incentives and International Conflict Prevention, p. 6, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/chap01.pdf)
The definition of what constitutes an incentive is subject to varying interpretations. The authors in this volume generally agree that the inducement process involves the offer of a reward by a sender in exchange for a particular action or response by a recipient. An incentive is defined as the granting of a political or economic benefit in exchange for a specified policy adjustment by the recipient nation. Often the incentive offered is directly related to the desired policy outcome, as when the World Bank assisted demilitarization in Uganda and Mozambique by providing financial support for demobilized combatants. It is also possible and sometimes necessary to conceive of incentives in a more unconditional manner, without the requirement for strict reciprocity. This is what Alexander George has called the pure form of incentives where there is little or no explicit conditionality.4 A sender may offer benefits in the hope of developing or strengthening long-term cooperation, without insisting upon an immediate policy response. In some circumstances, such as the Council of Europes negotiations with Estonia, the principal incentive may be the simple fact of membership itself, and the accompanying hope that a seat at the table may lead to other more concrete benefits in the future. At a minimum, incentives policies seek to make cooperation and conciliation more attractive than aggression and hostility. The goal is to achieve a degree of policy coordination in which, according to Robert Keohane, nations adjust
their behavior to the actual or anticipated preferences of others.5
Incentives strategies include more than just narrow, reciprocal quid pro quosthe plan is pure incentives.
Cortright 97 (David, president of the Fourth Freedom Forum in Goshen, Indiana, and fellow at the
Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, The Price of Peace: Incentives and International Conflict Prevention, ed. David Cortright, p. 270-271, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/chap11.pdf)

Incentives strategies can be both conditional and nonconditional. Cooperation theorists have emphasized what might be termed the power of positive reciprocity, the ability of cooperative gestures to induce similar behavior in others. Robert Axelrod and others have found that the simple tit-for-tat process, in which one party responds in kind to the gestures of the other, is a highly stable form of cooperation.14 Incentives policies go beyond the concept of narrow reciprocity, however. Inducements are sometimes offered as part of a long-range process in which no immediate response is requested or expected. This is the so-called pure form of incentives in which there is little or no explicit conditionality.15 Their purpose is to establish the basis for cooperative relations in the future. They may also help to rebuild a society ravaged by war in the hope that this will prevent a renewal of bloodshed, or encourage a process of dialogue and negotiation. An emphasis on inducements can change the entire setting in which interaction occurs and may even alter the recipients image of self and of potential adversaries.16 Whether in their pure form or in a more strictly conditional mode, incentives strategies attempt to address and shape the subjective motivations that determine policy preferences. As
such they are essential to the art of diplomatic persuasion.
EE = Unconditional
Economic engagement is distinct from quid pro quo carrots. elik, Masters in Political Economy 11 (Arda Can, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies:
A review study on coercive and non-coercive diplomatic actions, p. 12) Literature of liberal school points out that economic engagement policies are significantly effective tools for sender and target countries. The effectiveness leans on mutual economic and political benefits for both parties (Garzke et all, 2001). Economic engagement operates with trade mechanisms where sender and target country establish intensified trade thus increase the economic interaction over time. This strategy decreases the potential hostilities and provides mutual gains. Paulson Jr (2008) states that this mechanism is highly different from carrots (inducements). Carrots work quid pro quo in short terms and for narrow goals. Economic engagement intends to develop the target country and wants her to be aware of the long term benefits of shared economic goals. Sender does not want to contain nor prevent the target country with different policies. Conversely, sender works deliberately to improve the target countries' GDP, trade potential, export-import ratios and national income. Sender acts in purpose to reach important goals. First it establishes strong economic ties become economic integration has the capacity to change the political choices and behaviour of target country. Sender state believes in that economic linkages have political transformation potential (Kroll, 1993).
A. Economic engagement is structural linkage- a long term strategy for change Mastanduno, Professor of Govt @ Dartmouth, 2001 (Michael,Economic Engagement
Strategies: Theory and Practice, June, Paper prepared for Interdependence and Conflict, edited by Edward Mansfield and Brian Pollins, http://www.scribd.com/doc/114249238/Economic-EngagementStrategies-Theory-and-Practice Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) The basic causal logic of economic engagement, and the emphasis on domestic politics, can be traced to Hirschman. He viewed economic engagement as a long-term, transformative strategy. As one state gradually expands economic interaction with its target, the resulting (asymmetrical) interdependence creates vested interests within the target society and government. The beneficiaries of interdependence become addicted to it, and they protect their interests by pressuring the government to accommodate the source of interdependence. Economic engagement is a form of structural linkage; it is a means to get other states to want what you want, rather than to do what you want. The causal chain runs from economic interdependence through domestic political change to foreign policy accommodation.
B. Structural linkage is unconditional and is distinct from conditional, tactical linkage, AKA quid pro quos. Mastanduno, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences @ Dartmouth College, 8
(Michael, Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Timothy Dunne, p. 182 GAL) Positive economic statecraft may be defined as the provision or promise of economic benefits to induce changes in the behaviour of a target state.1 It is important to distinguish between two types.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker The first involves the promise of a well-specified economic concession in an effort to alter specific foreign or domestic policies of the target government. I call this version tactical linkage; others refer to 'carrots', or 'specific positive linkage'. A second version, which I term structural linkage and which others refer to as 'general positive linkage' or 'long-term engagement', involves an effort to use a steady stream of economic benefits to reconfigure the balance of political interests within a target country. Structural linkage lends to be unconditional ; the benefits are not turned on and off according to changes in target behaviour. The sanctioning state expects instead that sustained economic engagement will eventually produce a political transformation and desirable changes in target behaviour. Tactical linkage and long-term engagement are each informed by a different logic. Tactical linkage operates at a more immediate level; the sanctioning state calculates that the provision of a particular type of economic reward will be sufficient lo convince policy makers in the target to reconsider their existing policies. For example, immediately after the Second World War, the United States offered sizable reconstruction loans lo Britain, France, and the So- viet Unionin exchange for political concessions. The British and French were generally willing to accommodate US demands that they liberalize their domestic and foreign economic policies; the Soviets were not- In 1973, European states and Japan offered economic inducements in Ihe form of aid and trade concessions in Arab stales during the OPEC crisis in a largely successful atlempl lo assure that they would receive access to oil supplies at predictable prices- In 1982, the United Slates offered to increase sales of coal to its West European allies to discourage Ihem from a gas pipeline deal with the Soviet Union. This influence attempt failed. Long-term engagement, however, works at a deeper level, and its logic was most clearly articulated in the classic work of Albert Hirschman (Hirschman, 1945 (1980)). The sanctioning government provides an ongoing stream of economic benefits which gradually transform domestic political interests in the target state. Over time, 'internation- alist' coalitions lhal favour interdependence with Ihe sanctioning state will form and strengthen, and will exert influence over the policy of the weaker state in a direction preferred by the sanctioning state. Hirsch- man demonstrated how Nazi Germany used an array of economic inducements to inculcate economic dependence, and eventually political acquiescence, on the part of its weaker central European neighbours during the interwar period.
Economic engagement is unconditional and is distinct from inducements for specific policy changes. elik, Masters in Political Economy 11 (Arda Can, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies:
A review study on coercive and non-coercive diplomatic actions, p. 11) Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves the target state. Engagement policies differ from other tools in economic diplomacy. They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic intersection, interconnectedness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks economic interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender state to change the political behaviour of target state4. However they cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools, they focus on long term strategic goals and they are not restricted with short term policy changes (Kahler & Kastner, 2006). They can be unconditional and focus on creating greater economic benefits for both parties. Economic engagement targets to seek deeper economic linkages via promoting institutionalized mutual trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership to avoid possible militarized and nonmilitarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway to perceive the international political atmosphere from the same and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the engagement policies as follows, "It is a policy of deliberate
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker expanding economic ties with an adversary in order to change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relations " (p. 523/abstract). It is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as long term economic gains and more importantly, political gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosencrance (1977) in a way that "the direct and positive linkage of interests of states where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction."
EE= Unconditional- AT: South Africa

Constructive engagement with South Africa was NOT a quid-pro-quo, it involved unilateral concessions without conditioning.
Rotberg 86 (Robert I., Professor of Political Science and History, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, BEYOND CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT: UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD AFRICA, ed. Elliot P. Skinner, p. 133)
Crocker and his associates may still think that they can square the unholy triangle, but to believe so is optimistic. The United States has made dozens of concessions. South Africa has been rewarded. But there has been no attempt at operant conditioning. South Africa has feared no or little punishment. Indeed, the basic flaw in constructive engagement was, and is, its lack of an incentive structure. The concessions were made willy-nilly, in no hierarchical sequence which might have commanded South African attention, if not positive performances.
Constructive Engagement was originally formulated without explicit quid-pro-quos.

Rotberg 86 (Robert I., Professor of Political Science and History, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, BEYOND CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT: UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD AFRICA, ed. Elliot P. Skinner, p. 138)
The point was repeatedly made, and seldom challenged, that the administration's policy of constructive engagement did not live up to its original intention of encouraging South Africa to move towards a more just and effective way of dealing with its overwhelming black majority. Failure here was attributed to the reluctance of United States officials to exact a sufficient quid pro quo from South Africa, thereby stimulating change. One discussant remarked that instead of "using a carrot and a stick," the administration never even used a "twig." This allegedly left the South Africans free to exploit United States fears of Soviet penetration of the region and relentlessly to pursue its policy of apartheid. There was rejection of the suggestion that the United States was not interested in ending apartheid. Instead, there was a comment that the administration's overcommitment to constructive engagement placed its practitioners in such a situation that they applauded even slight and cosmetic changes in the Republic. Again, the allegation that the United States was ignoring the ethical problems posed by overt racism and doing business with a "pigmentocracy" was countered with a statement that in foreign relations, power, rather than sentiment, was the operating principle. A further suggestion was made that policies such as constructive engagement, when applied to South Africa, would not work unless "calibrated" in such a manner so as to exact the greatest change possible in the behavior of the country to which they are applied.
Constructive engagement was unconditional

Baker 2000 (Pauline H., President of the Fund for Peace and adjunct professor in the Graduate School
of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, ed. Haas and OSullivan, p. 96-97)
Namibiaparticularly linking its independence from South Africa to the removal of Cuban troops from Angolabecame the key to this approach. Holding out the promise of a reduction of the Soviet-Cuban threat in the region and warmer bilateral ties with the United States, Crocker reasoned that constructive engagement would put relations with Pretoria on a new footing. In this scheme of thinking, there was no place for sanctions or penalties because, as Crocker's memo to Haig indicated, "we . . . need Pretoria's cooperation."3 Indeed, as Jeffrey Herbst observes, the policy derived its distinction from the fact that it forswore sanctions altogether. "A commitment not to sanction was in effect an incentive." 4 Thus at the outset, the United States adopted a position of unconditional engagement with the South African government. However, it became apparent after a couple of years that the approach was not yielding the promised results. As some analysts concluded, "Crocker's strategy contained two basic problems. First,

it failed to take into account the changing military situation inside Angola; and second, it assumed that South Africa was interested in a settlement." 5
When violent unrest erupted in South Africa in 1983, a backlash ensued against constructive engagement as well as against the white regime. The thesis triggered the antithesis, a policy of conditional engagement that held internal change in South Africa as its primary objective. This antithesis involved a mix of incentives and penalties enacted by Congress over the veto of a popular president after two years of grassroots anti-apartheid activism in the United States. The new
approach was not merely an adjustment to existing policy, but a totally different form of engagement, aimed at different targets and using different policy instruments. Engagement was no longer directed at the government, but at supporting the antiapartheid opposition in South Africa. At the same time, the South African government was also targeted with limited trade and financial sanctions, which would be lifted if Pretoria adopted specific measures that would lead to negotiations with the black opposition. A commitment to lift sanctions when those steps were taken was the new incentive for Pretoria. The measures were spelled out in a clear road map defined in the legislation, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 (CAAA). The measures did not call for total isolation or abdication of the white government, but rather defined a set of five "doable" actions that would level the playing field for negotiations.
The use of conditional incentives for specific quid pro quos in South Africa was a fundamental shift away from the policy of constructive engagement, which was unconditional.
of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, ed. Haas and OSullivan, p. 112-113)
In the end, a mix of U.S. policy instruments contributed to the dramatic changes that occurred in southern Africa. However, the outcome was not carefully planned, the methods employed were hammered out in a prolonged debate, and the price paid in U.S. domestic political terms was high. Such a rancorous political debate over foreign policy had not occurred in America since the Vietnam War. Nevertheless, the dichotomy between incentives and sanctions, when they came into balance, is what actually made U.S. policy effective. Proponents of each strategy have claimed credit for the success. In part, each can legitimately declare to have played a positive role in achieving some part of the outcome the tenacity of Crocker's engagement led to success in regional diplomacy when the timing was ripe, and the tenacity of activists for pressing for internal political change and sanctions helped bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. Both approaches were needed to accomplish the full range of U.S. policy objectives in the region. Neither policy alternative, engagement or disengagement, was applied fully. The "good cop, bad cop" synthesis applied coercion and incentives, leaving the Pretoria government a way out. It is important to understand that, contrary to statements by the Reagan administration at the time that nothing had really changed, the targets and tactics of engagement had fundamentally shifted from Reagan's first term to his second. Moving from a policy that aimed at engaging the South African government, the U.S. Congress insisted on engaging civil society and the political opposition at the risk of alienating Pretoria and freezing regional negotiations. Moving from the use of unconditional incentives to influence Pretoria, the United States applied conditional negative incentives in the form of sanctions, with a clear road map on what steps had to be taken to get them lifted. And the United States switched from little engagement with civil society and the political opposition to unconditional engagement with nongovernmental groups and organizations.
The policy instruments also changed. An economic aid program unique for its time was applied to assist a broad group of civic organizations. It bypassed the South Africa government, becoming the first U.S. economic aid program with avowedly political, not developmental, objectives that did not go through the government. The United States also withdrew the ambassador associated with constructive engagement, appointed a new one, and met with high-level officials in the ANCthe
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker first time in the seventyfive-year history of the ANC. Moreover, Washington changed its public characterization of the organization. Rather than describing the ANC as using calculated terror, the United States portrayed the organization as having a legitimate voice in South Africa. Finally, the United States dropped the term constructive engagement, sparking humor that this was a policy that dares not speak its name.
The explicit link to Angolan troops was not part of Constructive Engagement to begin with; it was a later reaction to criticism of CE as carrots only, and it was part of a regional policy framework, not bilateral engagement with South Africa.
Johnson 86 (Walton R., Professor of African Studies, Rutgers University, BEYOND CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT: UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD AFRICA, ed. Elliot P. Skinner, p. 253254)
There was disagreement about the relationship between constructive engagement and the Cuban presence in Angola. One discussant stressed that one should not forget that constructive engagement was initially not designed with Angola in mind, but to bring about change in South Africa by use of the carrot and not by the unproductive stick. As such, this American policy was deemed basically nave, because it did not take into consideration the determination of Afrikaners to hold onto power by all the means at their disposal. Then, by extending this policy to all of southern Africa, in keeping with its global approach to the Soviets, the Reagan administration was said to have attempted to link problems which should have been tackled separately. It was argued that possible collusion between the United States and South Africa against the MPLA forces in Luanda may have led to the introduction of Cuban troops into the region. There was disagreement as to whether the United States was responsible for halting the South African invasion of Angola and the possibility of their going "all the way to Lagos." But it was suggested that the Cubans should not really be viewed as Soviet surrogates in Angola. Moreover, to link the Cuban presence in Angola to both the Namibian and internal South African issues was viewed as a mistake.
CE in South Africa had no penalties for failure to reciprocate.

of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, ed. Haas and OSullivan, p. 103) The South African experience points to the vulnerabilities of engagement strategies that do not sufficiently take internal politics into account, both in the country of origin, where in this case the administration failed to anticipate the strength of domestic opposition, and in the targeted country, where the administration failed to anticipate the strength and duration of the black uprising. In tying events in South Africa to the wider global struggle to combat Soviet influence, constructive engagement was a politically astute way of getting a conservative administration that otherwise would not have been very interested in the region to focus on South Africa.10 However, the policy neglected to take into account several other important factors: it had few allies (most of the Western countries, except for Margaret Thatcher's Britain, opposed it); it had no credible penalties for South Africa for failing to reciprocate; and it ignored the human rights component of the issue by giving exclusive attention to the strategic dimension of the policy. Ultimately, these weaknesses proved to be the undoing of the policy as public opposition mounted.
EE = Conditional Carrots and Sticks

In the US context, economic engagement must include conditional carrots and sticks. Helweg, Professor of Public Policy @ SMU, 2000 (Diana, Economic Strategy and National
Security, p. 145) Secretary of State Madeline K. Albright has argued that a U.S. policy of economic engagement with a country does not mean endorsement of its regime. In fact, the U.S. version of engagement is different from countries, such as France and Japan, which often practice a policy of unlimited economic engagement based on the rationale that unfettered trade and investment best promotes democratic values for the targeted nation, and financial success for themselves. By contrast, U.S.-"style" engagement must be coupled with a range of policy tools that includes the targeted use of economic restrictions. In other words, it is a variation of the traditional carrot and stick approach rather than one or the other.
South Africa example proves- Engagement is by definition conditionalit requires QPQs for specific actions. Chester A. Crocker, Former Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the Department of State, Fall 1989, Foreign Affairs, p. 144, Southern Africa: Eight Years Later
Regarding South Africa, constructive engagement was by definition a conditional concept: in exchange for Pretoria's cooperation on achieving Namibia's independence, we would work to restructure the independence settlement to address our shared interest in reversing the Soviet-Cuban adventure in Angola; in exchange for reduced rhetorical flagellation and minor adjustments in certain bilateral fields (e.g., civilian export controls), we would hold Pretoria to its self-proclaimed commitment to domestic reform. There would be a change of tone toward reciprocity and even-handedness. But there would be no change in basic policy parameters on such matters as the U.S. opposition to South African apartheid laws and institutions or bilateral security ties -- no "rewriting of the past 20 years of U.S. diplomacy," as the 1980 article put it -in the absence of fundamental internal change.
North Korea example proves- incentives are structured in a strictly conditional manner.
Cortright 97 (David, president of the Fourth Freedom Forum in Goshen, Indiana, and fellow at the Joan B.
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, The Price of Peace: Incentives and International Conflict Prevention, p. 13, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/chap01.pdf) In chapter 3, Scott Snyder of the United States Institute of Peace provides an in-depth analysis of the North Korean nuclear crisis. Beginning with the initial response of the Bush administration and continuing through the sometimes erratic but ultimately successful efforts of the Clinton administration, Snyder traces the diplomatic history of the crisis and highlights the role of incentives in the bargaining process with Pyongyang. As noted earlier, coercive measures were threatened but never employed, and Washington had to rely almost entirely on incentives to persuade North Korea to accept limitations and external controls on its nuclear program. The Agreed Framework plan authorized international inspections of North Koreas nuclear installations, in exchange for specified economic

and diplomatic commitments from the United States, Japan, and South Korea. As Snyder notes, the Agreed Framework was structured in a strictly conditional manner, with the delivery of each incentive tied to specific
policy concessions from Pyongyang.
Incentives = QPQ
Incentives are rewards offered for another country to take (or not take) X action. Smith 2004 (M. Shane., graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of
Colorado, Boulder, Beyond Intractibility. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Conflict Research Consortium, UC Boulder, April, http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/incentives/) What is an incentive? In an incentive, A promises rewards to B in an attempt to get B to do or not do X. (In our discussion, we will refer to A as a "sender," and B as a "target.") When punishments or sanctions are likely to be ineffective, providing rewards for preferred behavior may produce a more desirable outcome. However, incentives have been frequently associated with weakness or indecisiveness. As a result, scholarship has tended to focus more on sanctions than incentives. This unequal attention has skewed the perceived effectiveness of threats over promises. Incentives can be an effective alternative for managing conflicts. As with all such devices, however, they must be carefully administered with attention to matching the right tool with the right problem.
Incentives are rewards to change specific policies. Creative Associates International 2002 (Economic and Social Measures: Conditionality/
Incentives for Conflict Prevention, http://www.caii.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/Dashboard_CAIIAdminDatabase/resour ces/ghai/toolbox10.htm)
"Conditionalities and incentives are offered by third parties, typically governments or multilateral organizations, to encourage an authority, usually a government, to change policies or actions to promote specific objectives." This page includes information regarding conditionality and incentives as a tool in conflict prevention and resolution.
Removal of penalties must be QPQ to be an incentive. Smith 2004 (M. Shane., graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of
Colorado, Boulder, Beyond Intractibility. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Conflict Research Consortium, UC Boulder, April, http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/incentives/) There are generally four different types of incentives: 1.) Relaxing Penalties: One type is the removal of existing penalties, such as sanctions, embargoes, investment bans, or high tariffs, in exchange for specific policy changes. This was an implicit part of the U.S. incentives package, which tried to encourage Libyan cooperation with U.N. antiterrorism conventions and seek Libyan assistance in the hunt for the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks. However, this approach is not always viewed as an actual incentive. If the penalties being relaxed are thought to be disproportionate to the alleged actions, or the penalties are perceived to be wrongly imposed in the first place, or their mere withdrawal is thought to be insufficient compensation, then the target may not view such an offer as an incentive at all. While these incentives may be viewed as bribes or be resented as invasions of sovereignty, the willingness to lift sanctions in exchange for particular policy changes can create an atmosphere more conducive to compromise than can the threat of more sanctions.
Conditional Engagement = Gov-Gov

Conditional engagement is government to government. Unconditional engagement targets the private sector. Haass Director of Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, and O'Sullivan, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, 2000 (Richard and Meghan, "Terms of Engagement:
Alternatives to Punitive Policies," http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) Many different types of engagement strategies exist, depending on who is engaged, the kind of incentives employed and the sorts of objectives pursued. Engagement may be conditional when it entails a negotiated series of exchanges, such as where the US extends positive inducements for changes undertaken by the target country. Or engagement may be unconditional if it offers modifications in US policy towards a country without the explicit expectation that a reciprocal act will follow. Generally, conditional engagement is geared towards a government; unconditional engagement works with a countrys civil society or private sector in the hopes of promoting forces that will eventually facilitate cooperation.
Contextual/Inclusive Definitions
EE Inclusive Laundry List

Economic engagement includes removing trade embargos, tariffs, export credits, promoting investment, tech transfer, loans and aid. Haass Director of Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, and O'Sullivan, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies @ Brookings, 2000 (Richard and Meghan, "Terms of Engagement:
Alternatives to Punitive Policies," http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans and economic aid.3 Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in todays global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders or the termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of international military educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a countrys armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign military officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails building people-to-people contacts. Funding nongovernmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible incentives used in the form of engagement.
A. Economic engagement means positive sanctions Mastanduno, Professor of Govt @ Dartmouth, 2001 (Michael,Economic Engagement
Strategies: Theory and Practice, June, Paper prepared for Interdependence and Conflict, edited by Edward Mansfield and Brian Pollins, http://www.scribd.com/doc/114249238/Economic-EngagementStrategies-Theory-and-Practice Accessed 7/7/13 GAL) Much of the renewed attention in political science to the question of interdependence and conflict focuses at the systemic level, on arguments and evidence linking the expansion of economic exchange among states on the one hand to the exacerbation of international conflict or the facilitation of international cooperation on the other. The approach taken in this contribution focuses instead at the state level, on the expansion of economic interdependence as a tool of statecraft. Under what circumstances does the cultivation of economic ties, i.e., the fostering of economic interdependence as a conscious state strategy, lead to important and predictable changes in the foreign policy behavior of a target state? Students of economic statecraft refer to this strategy variously as economic engagement, economic inducement, economic diplomacy, positive sanctions, positive economic linkage, or the use of economic carrots instead of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker sticks. Critics of the strategy call it economic appeasement.
B. Positive sanctions include. Cortright 97 (David, president of the Fourth Freedom Forum in Goshen, Indiana, and fellow at the Joan B.
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, The Price of Peace: Incentives and International Conflict Prevention, p. 6-7, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/chap01.pdf) In his classic study, Economic Statecraft, David Baldwin offered the following examples of what he termed positive sanctions: granting most-favored-nation status tariff reductions direct purchases subsidies to exports or imports providing export or import licenses foreign aid guaranteeing investments encouraging capital imports or exports favorable taxation promises of the above.6 Other examples that could be added to Baldwins list include: granting access to advanced technology offering diplomatic and political support military cooperation environmental and social cooperation cultural exchanges support for citizen diplomacy debt relief security assurances granting membership in international organizations or security alliances
lifting negative sanctions.
Includes Energy and Environmental Coop

Economic engagement includes energy and environmental cooperation. Hormats, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, 2012
(Robert D., U.S. Economic Engagement with the Asia Pacific, December 7, http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/2012/201746.htm Accessed 7/6/13 GAL) During the U.S.-ASEAN Summit last month, President Obama and ASEAN leaders also launched what we called the U.S.-ASEAN Expanded Economic Engagement Initiative to promote economic cooperation between the United States and ASEAN. This initiative, which we called the E3, will focus on enhancing ASEAN members capacity for advancing cooperation in many areas that we think will further enhance trade. In addition, an exciting new area for our outreach is in the energy sector. At the East Asian Summit, President Obama and his counterparts from Brunei and Indonesia announced the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership. The Partnership will offer a framework for expanding energy and environmental cooperation to advance efforts to ensure affordable, secure, and cleaner energy throughout the region. We will foster active private sector involvement in the partnership, which will focus on the four key areas of renewable and clean energy, markets and interconnectivity, the emerging role of natural gas, and sustainable development. And the U.S. Government will add support to the effort through utilizing various U.S. government agencies, including the Export-Import Bank, OPIC, and TDA, in order to promote the use of American technology, services, and equipment in the energy infrastructure area and also to provide financing for American companies that wish to become engaged in these projects.
Includes Removal from Terrorism List

Iraq example proves- removal from the terrorism list is an economic engagement strategy. Borer, Professor @ the Naval Postgraduate School, 2004
(Douglas A, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy & Strategy, CHAPTER 12 PROBLEMS OF ECONOMIC STATECRAFT: RETHINKING ENGAGEMENT, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/strategy2004/12borer.pdf Accessed 7/6/13 GAL) In March 1982, the U.S. Government officially began engaging Saddam Hussein by removing Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The official reason was to recognize Iraqs improved record,4 a claim that a Defense Department official later rebutted in stating, No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis+ continued involvement in terrorism. . . . The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran.5 Thus Iraq, no longer on the list of terrorist states subject to highly binding export restrictions on weapon purchases and technology exports, became eligible for U.S. Government-financed credits designed to promote the export of U.S. goods. It was presumed that after Iraq began to benefit from and become reliant on U.S. economic linkages, the United States would be able to induce Iraq to behave more in accordance with international norms. Engagement of Saddams regime was anchored on the assumption that trade interdependence would be asymmetrical in favor of the United States, and that, in turn, the United States would be able to shape Iraqs behavior, using trade as a tool of influence. In November 1984, after Reagans reelection, Washington resumed full diplomatic ties with Baghdad.
Includes Streamlining Customs

Economic engagement includes changing customs procedures to promote greater trade. Office of the White House Press Secretary 12
(November 19, Fact Sheet: The U.S.-ASEAN Expanded Economic Engagement (E3) Initiative, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/19/fact-sheet-us-asean-expanded-economicengagement-e3-initiative Accessed 7/7/13) Today, at the U.S.-ASEAN Leaders Meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, President Obama and Leaders of the ten ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) states welcomed the launch of the U.S.-ASEAN Expanded Economic Engagement (E3) initiative a new framework for economic cooperation designed to expand trade and investment ties between the United States and ASEAN, creating new business opportunities and jobs in all eleven countries. E3 identifies specific cooperative activities to facilitate U.S.-ASEAN trade and investment, increase efficiency and competitiveness of trade flows and supply chains throughout ASEAN, and build greater awareness of the commercial opportunities that the growing U.S.-ASEAN economic relationship presents. Furthermore, by working together on these E3 initiatives, many of which correspond to specific issues addressed in trade agreements, the United States and ASEAN will lay the groundwork for ASEAN countries to prepare to join high-standard trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that the United States is currently negotiating with ten countries in Asia and the Western Hemisphere. E3 will begin with a set of concrete joint activities that will expand trade and investment: negotiation of a U.S.-ASEAN trade facilitation agreement, including simplified customs procedures and increased transparency of customs administration; joint development of Information and Communications Technology principles, to guide policymakers on issues like cross-border information flows, localization requirements, and the role of regulatory bodies. joint development of Investment Principles; principles would address essential elements of investment policies, including market access, nondiscrimination, investor protections, transparency, and responsible business conduct. additional work on standards development and practices; Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SMEs); and trade and the environment. Joint work under E3 will be further reinforced by USAIDs trade facilitation capacity-building assistance to the ASEAN members. E3 will also help ASEAN countries integrate their markets further as ASEAN seeks to build an ASEAN Economic Community by 2015.
Includes Infrastructure and Technical Assistance

Economic engagement includes infrastructure development and technical assistance. Daily News 7
("India attaches highest importance to Lankan ties," 1/26, http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/26/news33.asp Accessed 7/7/13) Bilateral economic and commercial relations between India and Sri Lanka are multi-faceted. The wide swath of our economic engagement includes buoyant trade, investments, services, infrastructure development, technical training and extension of lines of credit.
Includes Anti-Corruption, Regional Integration

Economic engagement includes improved economic governance and anti-corruption measures. Senator Chris Coons, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs, 3/17/13
( Embracing Africas Economic Potential, http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/globalaffairs/africareport.pdf Accessed 7/7/13) The Obama Administration has recognized the urgent need to accelerate and deepen economic engagement in sub-Saharan Africa. In a June 2012 policy document entitled, U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa, the Administration laid out a series of policies to meet this objective, including: working with ourAfrican partnersto promote an enabling environment for trade and investment; improving economic governance and transparency while reducing corruption; promoting regional integration; expandingAfrican capacity to access global markets; and and encouraging U.S. companies to trade with and invest in Africa.5
2ac/2nc Precision Cards
EE Precision Impacts
Engagement is used to describe U.S. interactions with a whole host of countriesa more precise interpretation is necessary to set any limit.
Capie and Evans 2002 (David Capie is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow @ Institute of International
Relations, Liu Center for Study of Global Issues, U of British Columbia, Vancouver. Paul Evans is Professor and Director of the Program on Canada-Asia Policy Studies, The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon, p. 112-113) Furthermore, the United States' use of the language of engagement has not been limited to its relations with China. Speaking to the National Press Club in July 1995 on the topic "A Peaceful and Prosperous AsiaPacific", the then Secretary of State Warren Christopher described U.S.--Japan relations as "the cornerstone of our engagement in the Asia-Pacific region". He also discussed the need for the "closer engagement" of Vietnam, as well as the "engagement... [of] other leading nations of Asia... Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore".19 The United States' relationship with North Korea has also been described in the language of engagement.20 Similarly, engagement is not a policy or approach pursued solely by the United States, Australia and several ASEAN member states have also set out what they mean by their policies of engagement.21
Precise interpretations of Economic Engagement key to avoid opening the floodgatesthere are over 30 qualified forms of engagement described in the literature, all with different strategies and mechanisms.
Relations, Liu Center for Study of Global Issues, U of British Columbia, Vancouver. Paul Evans is Professor and Director of the Program on Canada-Asia Policy Studies, The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon, p. 113) Third, engagement increasingly appears in the literature on Asia-Pacific security in qualified, or, to use Kim Nossal's term, "adorned" forms. A wide range of adjectives now proceed the word, usually purporting to give it some kind of nuanced meaning, These modifiers include: active engagement;22 ad hoc engagement; adversarial engagement;23 broken engagement; coercive engagement; commercial engagement; Comprehensive Engagement;24 compulsory engagement; conditional engagement; constructive engagement; Co-operative Engagement; deep engagement and deeper engagement; defence engagement; destructive engagement; Dual Engagement;25 economic engagement;26 effective engagement; Flexible and Selective Engagement;Z1 focused engagement;28 full engagernent;29 Global Engagement;30 hidden engagement; incomplete engagement; intense engagement; peaceful engagement; Peacetime Engagement; positive engagement;31 presumptive engagement; preventive engagement; proportional engagement;32 pseudoengagement; realistic engagement; sceptical engagement; selective engagement; sham engagement;33 Soft Engagement;34 strategic engagement; 35 and sustained engagement36
Precise Interp of Engagement Impossible

Impossible to distinguish between forms of engagement with any precision they are used interchangeably, and lines between them are consistently blurred.
Relations, Liu Center for Study of Global Issues, U of British Columbia, Vancouver. Paul Evans is Professor and Director of the Program on Canada-Asia Policy Studies, The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon, p. 114) As is apparent from the above discussion, the use of engagement in the rapidly growing literature on the Asia-Pacific security cooperation covers a diverse range of sometimes contradictory ideas, approaches, and policies. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, like concepts of security the different forms of engagement are often used interchangeably by officials or scholars in their writings and speeches. Even concepts which purport to describe specific state policies are often used without consistency or precision. Therefore, it should be remembered that some of the distinctions drawn below are often blurred in practice.
Engagement cant be an effective or predictable limiter: the literature is wildly inconsistent with its use, and it has several different meanings.
Relations, Liu Center for Study of Global Issues, U of British Columbia, Vancouver. Paul Evans is Professor and Director of the Program on Canada-Asia Policy Studies, The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon, p. 108)
Engagement According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, the noun engagement and the verb to engage have several different meanings. Among these, to engage can mean "to employ busily", "to hold a per-son's attention", "to bind by a promise (usually a marriage)", or to "come into battle with an enemy". The noun engagement can mean "the act or state of engaging or being engaged", an "appointment with another person", "a betrothal", "an encounter between hostile forces", or "a moral commitment". The gerund engaging means to be "attractive or charming" In the literature on security in the Asia-Pacific engagement most commonly refers to policies regarding the People's Republic of China. However, the term has been used in many different ways leading to a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. A Business Week interview with the Chinese VicePremier summed this up with the headline: "Li Lanqing: Does 'engagement' mean fight or marry?" l For one of the most important and ubiquitous terms in the Asia-Pacific security discourse, engagement is generally under-theorized. Most of the literature on the term is either descriptive or prescriptive. There is a remarkable lack of agreement about the meaning of engagement and a great deal of inconsistency in its use. An article in the New York Times noted that "there are many definitions of engagement" and described the Clinton administration's use of the phrase as a "moving target" 2 This indeterminacy has prompted a host of scholars and officials to offer their own modified interpretations of engagement - the number of which now exceeds thirty. These, in turn, have arguably made for less, rather than greater conceptual clarity.
Engagement is a moving target.

Sanger 97 (David E., The New York Times, March 2, p. l/n)
Mr. Clinton and his aides say they are anything but Pollyannaish, and that they will only let China into the trade organization on "commercially viable terms," not as a political gesture to Beijing. While President Clinton acknowledged recently that economic engagement had not yet yielded the results he sought, he repeated that it was the only way to keep China from turning inward, isolated and militaristic.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker But there are many definitions of engagement, and the Administration's interpretation of the phrase is clearly a moving target. None of Mr. Clinton's top economic officials, for example, use the term "commercial diplomacy," a favorite of the late Secretary of Commerce, Ronald Brown, during his trade missions around the world. As one senior Administration official noted recently, the term sounds too much like commerce and too little like hard-nosed diplomacy.
Toward
In Direction of
Toward means in the direction of Merriam-Webster 13
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toward Accessed 7/7/13) 1: in the direction of <driving toward town>
Free Dictionary 13
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/toward Accessed 7/7/13) prep. also towards (trdz, trdz, t-wrdz) 1. In the direction of: driving toward home. 2. In a position facing: had his back toward me. 3. Somewhat before in time: It began to rain toward morning. 4. With regard to; in relation to: an optimistic attitude toward the future. 5. In furtherance or partial fulfillment of: contributed five dollars toward the bill. 6. By way of achieving; with a view to: efforts toward peace.
Doesnt need to reach target

Toward means in the direction of, but not necessarily reaching Oxford English Dictionary Online 13
(http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/204005?rskey=RB1oz4&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid Accessed 7/7/13) 1. a. Of motion (or action figured as motion): In the direction of; so as to approach (but not necessarily reach: thus differing from to prep. 1).
Must reach target

Toward has the implication of reaching the target- it means the same as to Oxford English Dictionary Online 13
(http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/204005?rskey=RB1oz4&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid Accessed 7/7/13) c. With implication of reaching; to. Obs.
Toward is Distinct from To

Toward indicates the direction of movement, but not the result. Sperling 7 (Dave, "Prepositions: Using "To" and & "Toward" for Places,"
http://www.eslcafe.com/grammar/prepositions07.html Accessed 7/7/13) The preposition to is another common preposition of place. It is normally used with a verb showing movement and shows the result of the movement-- the place or person that the movement was toward or in the direction of. The preposition toward has a similar meaning, but it's not exactly the same: with toward, the direction of the movement is shown, but not the result.
Cuba
Dictionary.com 13
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cuba noun a republic in the Caribbean, S of Florida: largest island in the West Indies. 44,218 sq. mi. (114,525 sq. km). Capital: Havana.
Mexico
Dictionary.com 13
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mexico?s=t noun 1.a republic in S North America. 761,530 sq. mi. (1,972,363 sq. km). Capital: Mexico City. 2.a state in central Mexico. 8268 sq. mi. (21,415 sq. km). Capital: Toluca. 3.Mexican Golfo de Mxico [gawl-faw the me-hee-kaw] Show IPA . an arm of the Atlantic surrounded by the U.S., Cuba, and Mexico. 700,000 sq. mi. (1,813,000 sq. km); greatest depth 12,714 feet (3875 meters). 4.a town in NE Missouri.
Or
Or = Choose One
Or can be one does not have to be both Websters 96 (Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Or, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/or)
1. One of two; the one or the other; -- properly used of two things, but sometimes of a larger number, for any one.
Or means only one. Quirk 93 (Randolph, Professor of Linguistics University of Durham, and Sidney Greenbaum, A
University Grammar of English, http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm) OR To suggest that only one possibility can be realized, excluding one or the other : "You can study hard for this exam or you can fail." To suggest the inclusive combination of alternatives: "We can broil chicken on the grill tonight, or we can just eat leftovers. To suggest a refinement of the first clause: "Smith College is the premier all-women's college in the country, or so it seems to most Smith College alumnae." To suggest a restatement or "correction" of the first part of the sentence: "There are no rattlesnakes in this canyon, or so our guide tells us." To suggest a negative condition: "The New Hampshire state motto is the rather grim "Live free or die." To suggest a negative alternative without the use of an imperative (see use of and above): "They must approve his political style or they wouldn't keep electing him mayor."
Or does not mean and. Words and Phrases 7 (3A W&P, p. 167)
Ct.Cl. 1878. The word or in a contract will not be construed to mean and, where it connects propositions reasonably in the alternative. Thus, the word in a contract which binds the contractor to supply so many pounds, more or less, as may be required for the wants of certain government stations between a certain time, cannot be construed to mean and, and does not entitle the constractor to furnish all the oats which may be needed at the station.Merriam v. U.S., 14 Ct.Cl. 289, affirmed 2 S.Ct. 536, 107 U.S. 437, 17 Otto 437, 27 L.Ed. 531.
"Or" represents alternatives Random House Webster's College Dictionary 1999 (Random House, "or," Random House Inc.
p. 928) 1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): to be or not to be.
"Or" indicates an alternative Merriam-Webster 2010 (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "or," Merriam Webster Inc.,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or) used as a function to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea><sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>
Or = And
Or can mean and Words and Phrases 07 (3A W&P, p. 167)
C.A.2 (Conn.) 1958. Where words in will are placed in the disjunctive, and intent of testator is clear, word or is often construed as and.Hight v. U.S., 256 F.2d 795.Wills 466.
Or is the equivalent of and/or Bryan A Garner, The Elements of Legal Style, 2d ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) at 103:
and/or. Banish from your working vocabulary this "much condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers" (citing Raine v Drasin, discussed below) . . . . The word or usually includes the sense of and: No food or drink allowed. That sentence does not suggest that food or drink by itself is disallowed while food and drink together are OK . . . .
Venezuela
Dictionary.com 13
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/venezuela?s=t noun 1.a republic in N South America. 352,143 sq. mi. (912,050 sq. km). Capital: Caracas. 2.Also called Gulf of Maracaibo. a gulf of the Caribbean Sea between NW Venezuela and N Columbia Colombia, connecting to with Lake Maracaibo. 75 miles (120 km) long and up to 150 miles (240 km) wide.

Topicality

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Topicality

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Resolved means a determination reached by voting Websters Revised Unabridged 98 (dictionary.com)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Resolved = Firm Decision/Certainty

Resolved implies a specific course of action American Heritage 2k

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

AT: Resolved = Certainty/Immediacy

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

The United States federal government

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

The is used to denote a specific entity American Heritage 00

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

USfg is the three branches USLegal 9(definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government, September 23 2009, DA

Federal government is central government Websters 76

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Should is ought Dictionary.com 6(Dictionary.com: definitions, 6/3/2006, dictionary.reference.com, DA 6/21/11, OST)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Should isnt Mandatory

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Should = Past Tense of Shall

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

AT: Should is Past Tense of Shall

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantially- General Definitions

Substantial means considerable in quantity Merriam-Webster 2003 (www.m-w.com)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantial is 50%- two examples Smythe 10

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantially must be 2 percent Words & Phrases 60

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantially- Quantitative Best

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantially- Qualitative Best

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantially- Contextual Definitions Best

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantially- Without Material Qualifications

Qualification is a limiting modification Merriam-Webster Online 2011

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantially = Not Imaginary

"Substantial" means actually existing, real, or belonging to substance

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Substantially = Transparent, Not Concealed

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Aff- Substantial Flexible/Imprecise

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Increase- Make Greater

To become greater or larger. To multiply; reproduce.

Increase is to add to Dictionary.com 6(Dictionary.com: definitions, 11/3/2006, dictionary.reference.com, DA 6/21/11, OST)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Increase means to add to what already exists. Corpus Juris Secundum 44

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Lundeen/Pointer/Spraker

Increase Not Preexisting