When a “definition” is based on the word “include,” it does not exclude any aff.
Scalia ’12 [Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner; 2012; Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States; American lawyer, lexicographer, and teacher; Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, “Presumption of Nonexclusive Include,” Ch. 15]
The verb to include introduces examples, not an exhaustive list.
In normal English usage, if a group “consists of” or “comprises” 300 lawyers, it contains precisely that number. If it “includes” 300 lawyers, there may well be thousands of other members from all walks of life as well. That is, the word include does not ordinarily introduce an exhaustive list, while comprise—with an exception that we will discuss shortly—ordinarily does. That is the rule both in good English usage1 and in textualist decision-making.2 Some jurisdictions have even codified a rule about include.3