Forti Animo Introduction:
As Hugo Claus said, "I am a person who is unhappy with things as they stand. We cannot accept the world as it is. Each day we should wake up foaming at the mouth because of the injustice of things.” How mendacious must the world we live in be- that consenting adults cannot be together- physically and emotionally because of blood? It is pure fate that we end up being within in the family that we belong to- so why is it that that same fate that leads us to love, prevents us from it as well, because of the law? For what purpose, must incestual relations be illegal? How does it put others in harms way? What does it take from others? These will be discussed in the context of the debate, where we highlight the unfairness and prove why incestual marriage should be legalized.
: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
: activity that is against the law : illegal acts in general
: an act that is foolish or wrong
: sexual intercourse between people who are very closely related
NOTE: FOR THIS DEBATE THE SEXUAL RELATIONS WILL BE CONSENSUAL.
Contention One: Freedom of choice.
As human beings, we live our own lives. Our choices should be ours.
As human beings, we live our own lives. Our choices should be ours.
Sub-point: As Rebecca Massey-Chase said,"...our actions form part of a causal chain that operates ultimately on a sub-molecular level ... but this makes them no more free than if they were determined. Yet above the level of quantum pure randomness, every event has a cause. Every act is an event, and thus has a cause. These causes exist independently of the choosing agent and so cannot be influenced by the agent. Hence, the acts of each agent are caused (determined) by something beyond the agent’s control."
Contention Two: NAP The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)is “an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" [the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property] is inherently illegitimate.”The right of self-ownership is implied freedom of action in the absence of aggression. NAP therefore justifies the abolition of assault, fraud, pollution and most importantly, victim-less crimes.
This is especially important here because incest can be considered a victimless crime.
This is especially important here because incest can be considered a victimless crime.
Contention Three: Consent What consenting adults do, is their business. In this case, if persons were to engage in sexual relations with consent, then it is their choice. They are not harming anyone else, and as such, it makes no sense that their actions are illegal.
Contention Four: The Flaw with Religious Persuasion If persons wanted to engage in sexual relations, then it is their choice. If their actions are sinful, then their punishments will be duly given in the afterlife. Persons not engaged in those actions won't be punished hypothetically and thus- have nothing to worry about.
According to,Steven L. Sheppard,Byblis And Caunus, one must: “Follow your heart, not the law.” However, when the law is so biased and corrupt that lovers cannot be together, for no legitimate reason- something must be done to set it straight!
Towman will be going next round as per team decision. Forti Animo will also flesh out her arguments for rebuttals. These new arguments will be added to the debate. Given this is a 2 round debate with leader replies, this should allow the other side to address them prematurely, before they are brought up in round 2.
- Incest doesn't cause dysfunction
- Love is all relative (no pun intended)
- Marriage does not signify relations
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-29 00:40:11| Speak Round
can not marry a cousin marry a cousin is not allowed and have child because will born abnormalities and i am not a muslim
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-29 02:54:14| Speak Round
Black Stag: What kind of abnormalities does incest lead too?
admin: When incest leads to inbreeding, creating homozygocity, increasing the risk of genetic birth defects. This typically leads to weakened immune systems, lower fertility, and higher mortality generally.
admin: Are there limits to free choice? If so, what do you think those limits should be?
Black Stag: Free choice should be allowed in all circumstances. As long as you are willing to deal with the consequences.
Black Stag: So only offspring of the incestual couple have birth defects?
Black Stag: Is marriage synomous with sexual relations? Are there ways to have sex without producing offspring?
admin: No, but it greatly increases the risk
admin: Sexual relations can be outside of marriage, but may be expected within it.
admin: There are no ways to have vaginal sex without producing offspring. There are only ways to reduce the risk.
admin: As your argument is that there are no limits to free choice, why do you think we have laws in our society?
Black Stag: To limit the passions of men. We have law enforcement as a consequence of those who act on what society considers "wrong" choices
Black Stag: If I have sex 12 times a year with heavy duty condemns you're claiming I will eventually produce offspring. What if my female partner has had her reproductive parts medically disabled?
Black Stag: ? for first sentence
Black Stag: Can you give me a straight answer? Are sex and marriage synonymous?
admin: Medical operations can fail, as can condoms. The only possible 100% foolproof way to not have kids known to science is to not engage in sexual relations. This is not to say that everybody who has sex will have children, but to show that sex always runs the risk.
admin: I can give you a straight answer, and I did. Marriage is a subset of sexual relations.
admin: Does society consider incestual marriage "wrong", in general, in the present time?
Black Stag: It depends what society you live in. Virginia and several other states allow incestual marriage.
Black Stag: So all marriages require sex? You can't get married if you wont have sex?
Black Stag: What are the chances of having offspring after receiving a vasectomy?
admin: Low, but not impossible.
admin: While poorly policed, the entire reason why marriage exists is to acknowledge the sexual union of two individuals.
Black Stag: No arguments please
Black Stag: Oh, nvm
admin: Is Virginia representative of society in general, or is it your intention to set this debate in Virginia specifically?
Black Stag: Is this your own belief? What doctrine makes you believe marriage exists to acknowledge sexual union? Can marriage also be recognized as a loving union?
Black Stag: The claim is that there are different societies with different beliefs.
Black Stag: Is majority opinion impacting on the resolution?
admin: It is the reason for why marriage exists independent of my own personal views. It is not a specific doctrine. Spouses may marry for any reason but that doesn't indicate the point of marriage, much like people may feast for any reason on thanksgiving, although the point of thanksgiving feasts is the celebration of thanksgiving.
admin: If your claim is that law should conform to what society considers wrong choices, then I'd say society's opinion is pretty important for sure
Black Stag: So do you acknowledge others hold different doctrines than you?
admin: Your answer doesn't address my question.
Black Stag: Our claim is that people should be able to do anything they want that doesn't directly harm others. If it does directly harm others, then there should be consequences.
admin: I asked about whether Viriginia is representative of societies generally if I grant your claim there are many socieities, and if you wanted to set the debate in Virginia specifically.
admin: You still haven't answered those questions.
admin: Of course others hold different doctrines to me, but this is not a question of doctrine.
Black Stag: This debate is about incestual marriage in general. We are not switching locations. There are many different societies. There is not one society to generalize
Black Stag: This debate is to convince all societies that they should be accepting of incestual marriage
admin: So is it your claim that half of all societies are in favor and half are against this motion?
Black Stag: I never said that. I don't know each societies individual stance. It is impossible to generalize even one society.
Black Stag: Short answer. I don't know
admin: OK. How many societies can you name where incest is legal?
Black Stag: The majority of developed countries don't have laws legalizing incest. It is legal in Russia for example.
Black Stag: *illegalizing
Black Stag: Israel defines legal incest as sex between two consenting adults over the age of 18. Would you say this interpretation is more liberal or conservative?
Black Stag: * who are also related
admin: I would define it as marginally more liberal, but I would be biased here as a liberal myself. In general I was under the impression that that's all we're talking about in the debate. In the event of non-consent, or a non-adult etc, I am under the impression Israel covers that under other laws.
admin: Why do you think Russia, since you brought it up, makes incest legal but incestual marriage illegal?
Black Stag: Because Russia is has a religiously fundamental and conservative government
admin: Is it your contention then that the Russian government has fallen for what you label the "flaw of religious persuasion"?
Return To Top | Speak Round
Has our world not moved forward in stretching our openness about what's bona fide; Instead of just what looks acceptable on T.V back in the last few decades? The Cleaver family was everyone's role model, and the perfect family was projected to the droll viewers. Our society has accepted what was once the unacceptable! This new millennium has risen! Being open and in touch with our feelings has become highly commendable and promoted in today's society. Let's start selling love! Social media has stretched our boundaries of social liberation! This world is waiting to move forward. Why hold it back!
It Makes Sense
The likeliness of man and woman bonding with each other in an extended family is rare, but unbelievably astonishing when it truly transpires. The amount of things in common between two members of a family are vast. Culture, traditions, ethnic heritage, history. All these things contribute to what could be a beautiful successful marriage. What doesn't make sense about this proposal? What doesn't work here?
Responsible Choices Can Be Made
Responsible Choices Can Be Made
There are responsible choices incestual couples can make when engaging with the question of reproduction.
- Sexual Abstinence
- Use of birth control protection
- Sperm donation
It is the duty of the couple to make sure they do the right thing. Alcohol and drug abuse is prevalent among expecting mothers. People make poor choices constantly. They're going to continue to make poor choices, whether their vices are legal or not! Who are we to think that we can put an end to their lifestyle choices? It isn't our choice! How can we stop them from acting on their own free will? Let us support and encourage their choices, show them some love, and guide them in making healthy decisions.
Love is all Relative: We need more love
Love is a resource we need more of. How many lonely individuals cry out everyday for a mate they can love and cherish? Online dating sites are filled to the maximum point of capacity of lonely souls in search for their life partner. How do we help end this crisis? We must no longer be the adversaries of true love. It is too precious and invaluable. Keeping it illegal is an affront to our humanity! We must be accepting of incestual marriage, and allow its legalization. We do not have to accept it religiously, but our compassion to mankind should speak volumes in itself.
When you consider family heritage, the responsible choices that can be freely made, and the massive potential for more love and swirl in this world, what would be the sense in keeping incestual marriage illegal? We have only shown evidence to the contrary. Can we really say that love should be denied? Of any form? Of any kind? We cannot stand for injustice! How about we stand up for love?!
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-05 00:25:30| Speak Round
I'd like to thank the Legion of Christ for furthering their case.
In our opening speech, my teammate brought forth 3 individual arguments:
- It's not allowed
- Children of such a union are born with abnormalities
- Religious grounds
None of these 3 points has been responded to. In this round I intend to further expand on my teammate's points, provide ample detail showing that none of them have been rebutted or engaged with at all, and finally rebut my opponents' contentions.
My first speaker used cousins as an example but it was not intended to be an exhaustive description of incest. This isn't just marrying some cute second cousin twice removed who's your age and totally in to you. This is about any and all family marriage relations, even siblings or parents. Bear that in mind.
It's not allowed
In law and government, this is commonly called precedent.
Around the world, there are no shortage of societies where incest and any marriage associated with it is not legal. This remains completely uncontested in the affirmative's substantive material. In the cross-examination, however, the affirmative did deny (when pushed) this to be the case, claiming that incest is often legal. To show his point he bought up Virginia, Russia and Israel.
In Virginia, incest is a class 1 misdemeanor. This extends even when there is no blood relation. Just as the act of incest is illegal, it follows that incestuous marriage is also illegal - and indeed, it is. Further, this has always been the case there. Virginia is notable for allowing cousin-marriage, which is quite rare in the United States and (I assume) the reason it was bought up, but even they are civilized enough to realize that marrying your own son or daughter is reprehensible at any age.
In Russia, as I explained in the CX, the negative position in this debate is the status quo. They fail to prosecute incest cases because they do not believe the crime is significant enough. However, the law does not have to officially recognize such unions either, which is why incestuous marriage is banned in the family code (I couldn't find an English copy sorry).
In Israel, being a religious state, the responsibility of these matters falls to the religious authorities (of which a dozen or so are officially recognized). None of them (Christian, Muslim, Druze or Jewish) will perform an incestuous marriage. In 2010 Israel introduced (a very limited form of) civil union with heavy limitations, including that standards for marriage taken from Judaism, which is controlled by Jewish restrictions on incest. And yeah, this is legally enshrined also.
There are in fact only eight countries on this planet earth that have decriminalized (as opposed to legalized) incest (technically incest is not legalized anywhere), and NO countries in the world that have legal incestual marriage. With the possible exception of the Ivory Coast, they're not exactly third-world countries either: aside from Israel and Russia, there is also Spain, France, the Netherlands, China, and Turkey (Switzerland thought about it recently but then dropped it). And none - I repeat, none - of these countries will officially recognize this relationship with a marriage.
There are roughly 196 countries in the world, depending on how exactly you count them. Less than 5% of countries have decriminalized incest, and 0% have legal marriage. Let's be fair and include the fact that a handful of US states (Rhode Island for example) have decriminalized incest also. Even if we count US states, either as a partial country or pretending they're their own countries, the figures do not go above 5% and 0% respectively.
The point of all that is: precedent does generally exist in civil law for marrying very close family relatives. Further to this, we believe laws tend to reflect the civil and social norms of the societies in which they are based, so we feel it is a fair comment to say that by and large, incestuous marriage is not allowed.
On side negative, we're adopting the precautionary principle. That means we respect past traditions that have kept our society running well for a long time and with which there are no problems. There can be no question in this resolution that incest generally and incestuous marriages in particular are disallowed in basically every single culture around the world today. Even if there is no good reason for this to be the case, changing to another model may have unintended or unforseen consequences. It is therefore necessary to establish a strong, solid reason to break down this massive, global and important tradition.
This is not merely to say that pro has the burden of proof - which they do. This is to say that the existence of a long-established precedent of a working society without incestuous marriage is, in and of itself, a great reason to keep it that way. The more long-standing and more successful that society is, the stronger the reason to keep it that way. In Jewish culture, for instance, incest has not been permitted since the time of Moses, so that's an example of a very long-standing, successful modern society with a great precedent for not having incestuous marriage. Similar arguments could be made about every culture, people and nation of the world, because incestuous marriage is universally illegal.
And for that matter, just because incest is decriminalized does not mean it is socially accepted. It just means the police can spend their time on more pressing matters. Across every creed of the world, incest is not encouraged. Indeed the opposite is true - incest is shunned. It is seen as being among the great moral travesties and sexual crimes. If incest is not generally allowed, then it can only follow that incestuous marriage should not be allowed either.
Children born with abnormalities
There are two kinds of sub-issues here: physical and family.
Let's talk about the physical abnormalities first, and the harm they cause. Most people with severe physical abnormalities tend not to breed so much. Therefore, the law of natural selection would ordinarily provide that genes coding for physical disabilities would be removed from the gene pool pretty quickly. But there are some genes that, while they do code for a physical disability, are not usually "active" - these are known as recessive genes. They do not get bred out so easily because they are only active when both parents have the same recessive mutation and pass that down to their offspring.
Usually such genes are rarely activated because children come from different families meaning different combinations of recessive genes. Since it is extremely unlikely that the same recessive genes will be passed down to the child from both parents, the child won't have the same genes twice and thus the harmful genes will not activate. On the other hand, because families are relatively genetically similar, it is far more likely that the child will be granted the same recessive genes from both parents if the parents are of the same family.
These illnesses are no laughing matter. Up to a third of the children of incestuous unions die young because of them. On this side of the house, we respect the right to life and to good health as being integral to humanity. Compassion for our fellows, particularly young children, suffering terrible, horrendous and preventable diseases, having been contracted through no fault of the child, is the only humane response we have. It is more than immoral to suggest that we should allow barbaric practices such as this to continue if only in the name of public health.
The world has already accepted that such restrictions on childbirth are necessary in the name of public health - China's one-child policy is a shining example of this. The only question we need to ask ourselves is whether marriage means sex, because as is the case with (for example) other STDs, there's always a chance of having a child if you have sex - and that question is one both teams can agree on. In the opening round, pro defined incest as a sex act, so it naturally follows that incestual marriage must involve sex.
Traditionally, consummation has always been part of wedding ceremonies, and remains grounds for divorce almost everywhere if not done. Churches in particular have always placed huge importance on this facet of marriage. And more importantly, when the state encourages incestual marriage, they encourage, or at least legitimize, incest. It would be futile to make incest illegal but incestual marriage legal. Therefore, there need be no contest on this issue in the debate.
But even if every child were born healthy, there are still family problems, which is my second sub-issue. The fact is that incest makes family relationships complicated for any child, and introduces a new level of complexity into the family dynamic that ordinary families do not have to deal with. This can mean those children grow up with a range of mental and emotional scars that do not heal easily. The normalization of incest can also make those same children easier targets for sexual violence and sexual abuse, even if the government does not condone that, because they are still part of the family. It's similar in principle to how legalizing more "softer" drugs actually makes it harder to tackle the "harder" drugs paradoxically, because that location immediately becomes a gateway point for drugs in general. When a government legalizes incest, that becomes at gateway point for deviant sexual activity generally and an "open" attitude to sex in the household specifically.
If nothing else, this motion must fail for the sake of the children.
Civil and religious marriage traditions are what defines marriage. The fact is that every single important religion of the world stands united against the resolution.
It is irrelevant whether those religions turn out to be true or not. Right now, here on earth, changing the definition of marriage has notable consequences in eroding those traditions. When gay marriage becomes legalized, for example, there is a strong correlation with church attendance. We feel that this motion represents a decline in these traditional views of marriage. And that's a problem because it's not just the one tradition that dies.
There can be no question that for all the blood that has been spilled in the name of some God or rather, there is also a ton of value that churches have offered in terms of fulfilling political, personal, spiritual, ethical and community needs. As churches decline, individuals and communities are left with the pieces, some of which (sense of belonging and a higher power) simply cannot be replaced particularly easily.
There's two possibilities here. First, on the off chance we're wrong about everything else, the success of this model will only serve to reinforce the decline in the world's faith and bring about more depression, broken communities and such. On the other hand, suppose we are right - then the decline of the faiths would compliment all the other harms we're talking about and make them harder to deal with. Nowadays, a pastor may be able to intervene to help, for example, when some poor young soul is sick. Under this model, infrequent visits from cold, calculating medical professionals shall be all a child shall get, not the warm help and support of a pastor who can also support the family through that same tough time.
Allow me to begin by reiterating that while all three of our arguments quash their entire case, they have yet to say a single word in reply to any of our points throughout their substantive. They have completely ignored my opening speaker's awesome case.
Contention 1. Our society has long accepted that some restrictions on free choice are reasonable. In the CX I brought up laws as an example of this: people have no freedom to refrain from seatbelts in much of the world, for example, and there's good reasons for that in ensuring public safety. We've been told that laws exist "To limit the passions of men" (and presumably women), but incestual marriage falls squarely in that category. Our opponents have also conceded in CX that insofar society considers choices wrong, laws limiting free choice are legitimate. This is a pointless argument with no warrant and no reason to accept it.
Contention 1 subpoint. Whether incest is predetermined or not is irrelevant. We're talking about whether such marriages should be legalized, not whether they will happen. Unless our opponents can prove that it isn't predetermined that they won't happen legally, or prove it is predetermined that they will, this isn't an argument for either side. There is no inevitability in this debate, and tautologies aren't cool anyway.
Contention 2. Much like the first contention, the affirming team provides no reason to support the idea that the NAP is actually true. Further, they have not established a lack of third party harms, in the face of clear harms to communities, the state, families, individuals and particularly innocent children. And worse, the NAP is basically enforced by no government ever, because it's bad policy. Under the NAP you could never collect tax and thus organize a state at all.
Contention 3. You can't consent out of every law just because "consent". Even for sexual crimes like rape there's factors to consider like whether one party was holding the other at gunpoint, for instance. Consent is not a get out of jail free card for all crimes, and very difficult to prove even when it is. Further the affirmative have given no argument for why consent should be used to judge this particular crime. It isn't illegal because of a lack of choice, it's illegal because it poses a moral problem that undermines the fabric of society and is generally considered deplorable. It's even worse than saying public nudity should be allowed everywhere because I can consent to take my clothes off. The point is: no, you can't always consent.
Contention 4: I dealt with this in my case, but to reiterate: even if all the religions are wrong, there are real harms from the loss of a religious community as such a motion entails.
Contention 5: If we want to guide people into making responsible choices, then making irresponsible choices illegal is a great start. What pro needs to prove is that incestual marriage is a responsible choice that needs to be legalized, as opposed to an irresponsible one. Failing that, this point carries literally no weight.
Contention 6: The fact that online dating sites exist at all is a sure sign that love continues to spread around the world. The world has bountiful love and is always creating more. That doesn't mean we have to legalize every kind of love though, just because it's love. Bestiality, pedophilia and such are other forms of sexuality the same kind of thinking applies to.
With that I conclude my case and look forward to the reply round.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-09 13:23:43| Speak Round
admin: Do you agree that churches fulfill an important role in our society?
Christmas Stag : Yes
Christmas Stag : Do you agree that there are ways to have preventive sex?
Christmas Stag : Would you agree with the resolution if incestual conception didn't cause birth defects and the religious community accepted incestual marriage?
Christmas Stag : Finally, why do you think it is the governments responsibility and not society?
admin: Preventative sex as opposed to completely protective, yes, that's possible.
admin: No, because even if the second two arguments fail, our first one is still strong.
admin: Because the role of the state reflects society's norms and practices. The government is a tool of society in this regard in enforcing a norm society already holds.
Christmas Stag : Do you believe members of society should be normal?
admin: Insofar as normal means conforming to certain basic norms enshrined in the laws of a democratic society, yes
Christmas Stag : Is it democratic to suppress different cultural subsets from developing?
admin: Yes. For example, it is entirely legitimate to suppress a pedophilic culture, or a gangster culture, in the name of public safety.
Christmas Stag : Do you think incest is as bad as pedophillia
admin: I think one can draw parallels in terms of how our society suppresses both cultures by a similar mechanism. All I'm saying is it's a legit mechanism
Christmas Stag : So we should only suppress the "bad" cultural subsets?
admin: As a liberal that would be my natural inclination, but conservatives have legitimate points about broadening that scope
Return To Top | Speak Round
cousin is boring
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-14 22:10:34| Speak Round
Refuting the contention that it is not allowed
We do not accept this argument. If every debate were to be decided by the status quo, then there would be no need too debate at all. We could debate that college football should be abolished, with no expectation that it would actually ever happen. Does that diminish our right to debate it anyways? Our position doesn't find this contention as a legitimate obstacle against affirming the resolution.
None the less, we will point out that the opposing position is actually wrong. Most countries, usually very liberal and progressive, allow second, first, or no limitation incestual marriage. The legal and christian definition of incest is usually defined as sex between anyone related to a second cousin or closer.
In fact, 10% of all marriages are between first and second cousins. Another 5% is believed to be between closer family members. This side concludes that the opposing positions contention is not only absurd, but astoundingly false. Incestual marriage is much more common than the opposing position thinks, or cared to research.
Defending Responsible Choices
The opposing position has stated that it isn't relevant over whether people will commit incest regardless of illegalizing marriage. We beg to differ. Incest will in fact happen whether or not incestual marriage is legalized. Just as homosexuals will continue having homosexual sex whether it is illegal or not. Banning marriage does not halt their lifestyle. What we have shown is that there are ways for incestual couples to be responsible and not have a child. The opposing position in cross examination said that it is very unlikely for someone to become pregnant after a vasectomy or hysterectomy. Why should we punish the responsible couples while the irresponsible ones continue to have sex that could result in an abnormal child?
Going into further examination of the opposing positions fear mongering is unnecessary. We have already proven that banning marriage will not prevent incestual sex from happening. Many incestual children do not have any abnormalities, because their parent have large gene pools.
By this logic we should continue to keep slaves. Continue to allow cannibalism. Legalize honor killing. These things are traditions still practiced around the globe. Incest itself is a tribal tradition in parts of Iran and Afghanistan. Our culture and traditions evolve. Keeping them from progressing is counter productive. We cannot be afraid to experiment in new traditions. We must allow social change for the better to happen, even at the risk of offending peoples feeble minds. If they get offended by what other cultures do, then they are philosophically challenged, and should not be given the time of day. By legalizing incestual marriage we can teach those other cultures to hold some respect.
Regardless, there are several religions that allow marriage between a first and second cousin. Including some aspects of Oriental Christianity, many sects of Islam, and certain sects of Sihkism. The opposing position should not trick you into falling for lies. The Lutheran church and many Baptist churches have married incestual couples before.
Was it not Able and Eve who committed incest in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? God accepted their love, and allowed them to populate the earth. Not because it was wrong, but because it was necessary. Putting more love into this world is very necessary
Defense One: The real tyranny is when governments start protecting us from ourselves. There is no reason to limit free choice besides times when others may be at risk. We do not accept than an abnormal child is sub-optimal. Many would even consider that a gift. We do not encourage incestual sex, but we believe there are some people who can make responsible choices to avoid having a child. We should not punish the whole for the actions of a few.
Defense Two: This is the same rhetoric that reappears in Gay Marriage debates. Rape and sex have nothing to do with marriage. The opposing positions constant reminders to the so called "horrors" of incestual sex is at best irrelevant.
Defense Three: We do not accept that a contract of love and affection is an irresponcible choice. If anything it is a responcible one. The opposing position must learn to different incestual sex from incestual marriage. Considering how many couples get their reproductive organs removed, or abstain from sex in marriage, we can scrap this contention as being negated
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-19 20:49:18| Speak Round