Topic Released Tomorrow
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Tomorrow, the National Forensic League will announce the Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution that will serve as the basis for competitions in both September and October. There are six potential resolutions remaining from which the resolution will be chosen. (They are listed in full in the extended body of this article.)
Which do you hope will be chosen? Why?
Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.
Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution.
Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.
Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
Popularity: 9%
test
109 Responses to “Topic Released Tomorrow”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Breaking News: Sept/Oct LD Resolution Released
- GOP Ticket: McCain | Palin
- Topic Released Tomorrow
- Where Will You Compete?
- Register for Big Bronx!
- Jon Cruz Announces Vassar Round Robin Field
- Aaron Timmons Announces Greenhill Round Robin
- Five Potential Policy Debate Topics for 2009-2010
- VBI@LMU Concludes
- Stories for Students
Posted from: 72.80.232.16
August 7th, 2008 23:39
I like:
–Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.
–Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
I dislike:
–Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
–Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.
I don’t have an opinion about the rest
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 7th, 2008 23:52
I like:
Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices
Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.
Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
I dislike:
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
And have no opinion on the rest.
Posted from: 70.241.126.195
August 8th, 2008 01:44
any topic where I get to hear a rant against the IMF would be awesome
Posted from: 166.127.1.215
August 8th, 2008 07:11
debt debt debt
Posted from: 76.94.89.102
August 8th, 2008 08:01
i believe it will be jury nullification.
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
August 8th, 2008 08:40
My bets, and hopes are for patents!
Posted from: 76.103.105.207
August 8th, 2008 08:41
I really like pharm patents and TRCs as resolutions. but sept/oct is supposed to be for training novices and obviously making freshmen learn about transitional justice or IP in addition to debate would be bad. so although i dont really like it as a topic, i guess jury null would be best. not really looking forward to lots more courts system though.
Posted from: 68.90.188.16
August 8th, 2008 08:53
I dislike:
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.
I like:
Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.
Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution.
Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.
And no opinion on the patents topic.
Posted from: 71.214.199.128
August 8th, 2008 09:03
why does everyone dislike this topic:
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
?
Posted from: 66.229.65.57
August 8th, 2008 09:06
because alot of people think most rounds will boil down to util vs. deontology debates.
Posted from: 156.111.39.123
August 8th, 2008 09:28
i think the TRC topic is too similar to the ICC topic which is highly possible for jan feb. having two IR topics, and two that deal with a lot of the same issues, in one season won’t be fun
Posted from: 166.127.1.215
August 8th, 2008 09:49
I also like and dislike topics.
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 8th, 2008 10:11
Most people seem to like debt (as do i) so i wont justify why I think it is a really good resolution.
As for jury nullification, I think people aren’t thinking enough about the topic.
1. This is a GREAT topic for novices. Sure, it doesn’t use the traditional “i value justice defined as giving each their due” but if anyting, thats more educational for them to learn value debate. Additionally, the resolution is incredibly simple: it’s just whether juries should be able to make decisions independent of the letter of the law.
2. There is so much topic literature and thus topic ground on this topic. If you go onto jstor or lexis nexis and type in jury nullification you will get about 200 easily applicable articles immediately, allowing for a lot of diversified argumentation, both on the affirmative and the negative.
3. The resolution avoids skeptical/shady strategies that people have lately been employing on topics that have been annoying a lot of people. For instance, the principle of taint of injustice is irrelevant to this topic, as are skeptical arguments and arguments like anarchy good.
Posted from: 137.131.164.138
August 8th, 2008 10:45
i’m betting jury nullification or patents
don’t really have a preference, although jury nullification would probably have more diverse/more topic literature
Posted from: 72.68.76.55
August 8th, 2008 10:48
j-null or debt cancellation
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
August 8th, 2008 11:20
“3. The resolution avoids skeptical/shady strategies that people have lately been employing on topics that have been annoying a lot of people. For instance, the principle of taint of injustice is irrelevant to this topic, as are skeptical arguments and arguments like anarchy good.”
Empirically denied. Except those arguments become more baller than they ever have been.
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 8th, 2008 11:44
how do you run a skeptical argument on jnull? even then, i would expect it to be a pretty bad argument seeing as how the value is not normative. Any link would probably be tenuous/untopical, i would guess.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 8th, 2008 11:44
jury nullification is definitely the best.
extremely clear and equal division of ground, good wording, U.S. specific, interesting, easy to teach to novices.
Posted from: 76.212.198.208
August 8th, 2008 12:39
I like the patents topic
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
August 8th, 2008 12:50
I like the pharmaceutical patents one too, we haven’t had a topic directly relating to medicine and health since the health-care topic and I really enjoyed it.
Posted from: 69.224.182.162
August 8th, 2008 13:59
JURY NULLIFICATION!!!!!!!!
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 8th, 2008 14:04
Varun:
The anarchy case case lives: Jury Null perpetuates the state by creating a ruse of solvency. This causes us to approach the state with complacence and drop our much needed guard. Moreover, working within the system, even when beneficial, only legitimates the systems of domination it checks. The terrors of statism outweigh the limited check that Jury Nullification provides.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
August 8th, 2008 14:07
i don’t see how JN links to anarchy…
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 8th, 2008 14:13
I mean on neg, running Jury Nullification isn’t a legit check for the reasons above. And running anarchy good.
[for the record, I am not saying this is the best or even a good case to run, I’m just saying anarchy can be run]
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 8th, 2008 14:29
For example:
V. Justice
Cr. Limitation of Statist Influence (or something along those lines)
Running statism bad arguments as criterion justifications.
C1: Jury Null has a ruse of solvency making us complacent to the state.
C2: By working within the system Jury Null legitimates the system of domination it seeks to check.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
August 8th, 2008 14:34
I like:
J null
Patents
Debt
I disslike (but would still enjoy debating):
TRC (I’m betting the ICC topic gets picked, and it’d be so much overlap, plus I think its just not the greatest topic).
Reparations (If you look at the amount of money that anyone would actually get out of Reparations, it’s pretty much a joke)
I will bang my head against the dorm room wall @ UCLA if the moral permissibility topic gets chosen.
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 8th, 2008 14:36
Phelan, I will join you and we can bang our heads against the wall together if that happens.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
August 8th, 2008 15:01
couldn’t you link turn and say jury null is closer to anarchy b/c jury null means ignoring the law?
Posted from: 76.242.39.232
August 8th, 2008 15:13
What is this much needed protection? I don’t follow…and doesn’t legitimizing checks stray away from anarchy?
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 8th, 2008 15:19
bietz it doesnt matter. THe link (no offense rob) that rob provided is clearly TERRIBLE (i know you said you dont support the case or think it is legitimate, im just saying.)
its CLEARLY untopical: how is the value justice? The topic is as follows - “Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on the government.” The value is something along the lines of legitimate checks, at which point an anarchy good position would be excluded.
In any case, jury nullification will be an amazing topic. hurrah! (or however you spell it)
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 8th, 2008 15:40
@Bietz: yes you could. Like I said, it’s not a good position, I was just using it to show Varun it could be run (not necessarily run well).
@Matt V: It’s legitimizing the system, and yes it does that’s why the anarchy neg would oppose it.
@Varun: Yes, the link is poor - I never said it wasn’t. As for the value of Justice, you can run justice on topics that don’t say ‘it’s just’. One could very easily argue that if something is just it must be legitimate.
Posted from: 208.99.75.32
August 8th, 2008 15:42
I think you are way off here Varun.
First, I don’t think this position is non-topical anyway. We have seen topic before that do not have justice explicitly in the wording, but debaters still find a way to bring it into play.
For instance, the only reason governments or societies would care about legitimate checks is because of the underlying respect for the due of individuals, which requires that we respect their autonomy.
Second, if the negative burden (which is contestable) is to show that we should not state something is a legitimate check on government, it would still be neg ground to say that there is *no* legitimate check on government because government shouldn’t be checked - it straight up shouldn’t exist. That argument could be made to work.
Haha, so I guess the point of that was to show why the position could exist. However, I think jury nullification is a good topic…
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 8th, 2008 16:04
okay even if we assumed justice and legitimacy were interchangeable, i still think the second argument is false, Anony.
1. If governments ought not exist, then we ought to take legitimate checks against governmental powers. I dont understand how there can be NO legitimate check against the government if governments ought not exist, since checks undermine government authority. I.e. high powered executives would prefer no government regulation of their corporations, but still view their control over certain senators as an effective check on authority.
2. Maybe this is just a mess-up on the way you worded the second argument but there is a differnce between stating something is legitimate and something actually being legitimate. (Specify for me so i can respond).
Also, is it too hard for you to post your name? :P
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 8th, 2008 16:04
Unless Anony was your last name or something because I had assumed it was a typo of the word Anon
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
August 8th, 2008 16:24
rob, can i head bang with you as well? i will bring young daniel with me…
Posted from: 68.126.243.119
August 8th, 2008 16:26
no jury nullification, plz. i hate debating about the law..
Posted from: 68.126.243.119
August 8th, 2008 16:27
i really like both of these. yeah some jerk is gonna say that the patents topic involved the law but i can get away from it in my cases
Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.
Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
Posted from: 68.126.243.119
August 8th, 2008 16:28
involves*
cy’all at session 2
Posted from: 76.19.77.197
August 8th, 2008 16:34
Patents!
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 8th, 2008 16:46
Matt: mos def, we’ll throw a head bangers ball
Mezzatesta want to come?
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
August 8th, 2008 17:20
dude, we need food at this party
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 8th, 2008 17:38
definitely. You down with smuggling food out of the cafeteria lunch of the day the topic comes out?
Posted from: 71.214.199.128
August 8th, 2008 18:04
I asked:
“why does everyone dislike this topic:
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.”
Ryan T said:
“because alot of people think most rounds will boil down to util vs. deontology debates”
….why is that bad?
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 8th, 2008 18:11
wow: it gets super old super fast.
Posted from: 208.120.131.125
August 8th, 2008 18:42
i hope its jury nullification..either that or the cancelling debt of countries one.
Posted from: 67.159.50.91
August 8th, 2008 19:16
That topic sucks because
a) It will just boil down to straight up deontology vs. utillity debates comparing competing assertions– “Deontology collapses into utility”; no!! “Utility collapse into deontology”, “deontology undermines moral intuition”, NO !@!#! “utility undermines moral intuition.” — there’s no way to decide who is actually winning that debate when each side is just dumping standards answers.
b) There’s no real world application; that resolution says NOTHING. It just posits a philosophical question that you can’t have real-world impacts for your arguments.
c) The wording sucks: one innocent person for more innocents? How much more? 1? 1000? There is no way to frame this debate, because the answer is obviously different if we have to MURDER someone to save 2 people or murder someone to prevent 6 million deaths.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
August 8th, 2008 19:53
it wont “boil” down, the topic is just straight up util bad or not. and util isnt the opposite of deontology…
Posted from: 71.141.147.126
August 8th, 2008 20:40
I extremely dislike the topic It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
I would actually really like to debate the Jury Null topic. I also like the highly indebted poor countries topic.
Is it just me or does the Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution. Seem similar to a lot of the counter-plans on the ICC topic, and even if it is not about the criminal court it seems like there would be lots same types of arguments. I don’t think it will get chosen if they are seriously considering the ICC resolution.
Posted from: 70.252.183.32
August 8th, 2008 20:50
I’ve heard rumors from some very credible sources that it will be jurynul … not the worst i suppose.
Posted from: 71.214.199.128
August 8th, 2008 21:21
philip angelides says:
“it wont “boil” down, the topic is just straight up util bad or not. and util isnt the opposite of deontology”
why is that true?
Posted from: 68.90.247.31
August 8th, 2008 21:29
wow, maybe your position would be more compelling if instead of asking why the topic is utility vs. deontology over and over again, you actually offered some examples of other positions people might run…
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
August 8th, 2008 21:34
re:wow
utilitarianism means the greatest good for the greatest amount of poeple.
deontology refers to when we look to the means or intentions instead of the ends or consequences.
consequentialism would refer to the opposite of deontology, where we look to the consequences instead of the means.
util is a consequentialist approach but the two are not synonyms.
all three of these concepts deal with ethical and moral notions a lot of the time and so the topic asks the affirmative to say whether morally it would be permissible to kill one for the benefit of others– i.e. util.
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 8th, 2008 22:53
I think it would be more “substantive” if people justified why certain resolutions are good or not (absent the morally permissible resolution). Sure we are interested in what you think are good resolutions but it would make for better discussion if people explained why a resolution is good/better than another one.
Posted from: 76.103.105.207
August 8th, 2008 23:03
enjoy my random rant
obama likes Nietzsche, Heidegger likes Nietzsche, Lacan likes Heidegger, Derrida likes Lacan, Judith Butler likes Derrida, and according to Senator McCain, Obama=Paris Hilton, and thus, it is logically valid that Judith Butler is equal to Paris Hilton (if language has no inherent meaning, yes really can mean no, take that in your pipe and smoke it, hannah arendt). haha, pomo and postruc deconstructed…i shall call it…poco, post contemporary since i am so ahead of my time. hm, well if paris=pomo (interesting), that means that either one can yell “o-fusc-ate me” during intercourse. additionally, my homeboy Doctor Jason Baldwin, PhD, the triple homicider (he killed pomo, postruc, and phenomenology) outranks JuBut on rate your profs. reactionary lovable weirdos-1 shitty writers-0. to draw another interesting parallel, we can also bring in karl (doesn’t deserve any) marx. if there is dialectical materialism, paris hilton, must definitely be somewhere in that (thesis: Jesse Jackson, antithesis: Paris Hilton, thesis: Barack Obama). and we all know that Obama suffers from a major case of penis envy when he sees john mccain, which is why he must turn to Freud’s follower, Lacan, who established that Women Don’t Exist in order to let his pal John Edwards off the hook (john edwards had an affair with a woman, women don’t exist, therefore, john edwards had an affair with a non-entity, since “There can be no primary metaphorization of our sexual difference so that we can represent ourselves, reshape the meaning of feminine, and transmit our significance to humanity between the generations.” (Cornell) Furthermore, we all know that Obama’s interest in meeting with Castro, Ahmadenijad, et al, is so that he can look into the face of the Other, in a Levinasian sense, in order that he can experience what Heidegger called Being (Stupid Nazi). The silly (not) black (enough) guy is exploiting the votes of the dehumanized (possibly) subjects in order to accomplish his phenomenological ground projects. if obama writes an intellectual autobiography, perhaps he can entitle it “on being and nothingness.” however, the real legit pomos, who want anarchy in order to throw off the Foucauldian Panopticon under which they fancy themselves to be living, hate obama because they think that electing a soft pomo would create a ruse of solvency which would pacify the soft revolutionaries and stifle the discourse (how have i not used that word yet!?) necessary to bring on the nebulous and yet all-consuming revolution.
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 8th, 2008 23:36
You neither understand Heidegger’s conception of Being nor Foucault’s panopticon. Never again, please.
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 9th, 2008 02:04
Varun, I doubt he was being entirely serious. Sometimes you just got to chill man.
Posted from: 24.92.38.205
August 9th, 2008 06:32
>b) There’s no real world application; that resolution says NOTHING. It just posits a philosophical question that you can’t have real-world impacts for your arguments.
And this is a bad idea because….why?
BC
Posted from: 208.99.75.32
August 9th, 2008 07:21
Re: Bill
I think the lack of the real world application of the topic only further contributes to the lack of topic depth.
Perhaps affirming could be quite real world by listing innocent people who could be killed to save more innocent people (i.e. kill an innocent child to prevent him/her becoming a ruthless dictator). I am sure that would be quite persuasive (note the sarcasm)
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
August 9th, 2008 08:49
J null, *fingers crossed*
Posted from: 24.92.38.205
August 9th, 2008 09:58
Actually, I think NOT doing a real world topic would be healthy for LD–I’d like to see “Truth is more important than beauty.”
BC
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
August 9th, 2008 10:27
My bets are on J Null, with the possibility of patents
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 9th, 2008 10:33
Resolved: Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Posted from: 166.127.1.215
August 9th, 2008 11:20
cancel debts, pharm patents, or reparations
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
August 9th, 2008 14:02
post 54 leveled you all
oh reparations is sick, cant believe no one likes it
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 9th, 2008 15:10
reparations and jury null are tight
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
August 9th, 2008 15:40
If the moral permissibility topic comes up, I think I might have to resort to running something similar to John Scoggin’s “10 people overview” from the Death Penalty topic.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 9th, 2008 16:32
the 10 people overview is quite possibly the greatest argument of all time
Posted from: 75.80.139.173
August 9th, 2008 16:45
what’s the 10 people overview?
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
August 9th, 2008 17:25
on the Death Penalty topic, John Scoggin ran an overview saying that the Aff had to be categorical, and therefore, they had to justify not executing the 10 people he listed. It was like Mussolini, Hitler, Timmothy McVeigh, Bin Laden, Hussein, and some other awful people.
I agree with Wade, though. It is probably the greatest argument ever
Posted from: 68.38.86.140
August 9th, 2008 22:06
J-null is amazing.
Posted from: 75.73.217.69
August 10th, 2008 14:00
To give credit where credit is due, DP wrote the 10 people overview, I never came close to writing something that good in my debate career.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 10th, 2008 19:52
TRC’s iz pawesome, but itz will be nullification.
DP copped my swag from Ghill
Posted from: 64.183.240.17
August 10th, 2008 21:03
Who is DP?
Posted from: 71.214.199.128
August 10th, 2008 21:58
daryl pinto
Posted from: 8.7.69.228
August 10th, 2008 22:03
Best: patents
pretty good: jury null (my only apprehension is all my NM rounds- people do value debate with explicitly worded resolutions there. Its not going to be any fun D=)
Not too shabby: debt
Terrible: all else. I will not debate for that month if the one innocent reso comes through.
Posted from: 74.73.188.174
August 11th, 2008 14:03
two months
Posted from: 208.99.75.32
August 11th, 2008 15:55
Re: Post 79
“Terrible: all else. I will not debate for that month if the one innocent reso comes through.”
That’s the spirit…
Posted from: 76.93.137.42
August 11th, 2008 18:28
re: post 77
there isnt a 79th post yet genius
lol
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 12th, 2008 06:22
now there is
Posted from: 67.163.20.6
August 12th, 2008 09:01
re: post 54
O_O
re: posts that complain about innocent ppl res/say it shouldn’t come up
you all jinxed it; now i’m going to have to judge at least ten-twenty rounds of worthlessness.
Posted from: 169.232.243.81
August 12th, 2008 14:40
i like the economic reparations one and the jury nullification and the debt cancellation one.
Posted from: 71.174.90.202
August 12th, 2008 15:33
I’m actually fine with every topic accept for J-Null and the saving innocents one. If either of those two topics are chosen, I will be extremely upset. I don’t see why people like J-Null.
Posted from: 24.90.20.221
August 12th, 2008 16:12
except
Posted from: 169.232.243.242
August 12th, 2008 18:06
I mean, J-null is all about whether or not you like legal topics. IF you like legal topics, J-null is going to be an amazing topic because it’s one of the most controversial and probably one of the most historically significant rights in a jury trial (assuming we exclude things that happen before the trial).
Posted from: 70.254.6.119
August 13th, 2008 10:34
I don’t care which topic they choose, I just want them to HURRY and release it!
[impatient]
Posted from: 169.232.243.63
August 14th, 2008 11:54
Hooray waking up early to find out the topic!!!
Posted from: 169.232.243.195
August 14th, 2008 12:03
I am getting up at 4:50 and waiting/
Posted from: 64.183.240.17
August 14th, 2008 12:43
Waking up early? What time do they release it (Central time)?
Posted from: 71.139.13.140
August 14th, 2008 13:45
It varies…one topic was out on the night before on VBD.
Posted from: 70.56.1.74
August 14th, 2008 15:02
varun
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 8th, 2008 23:36 55
You neither understand Heidegger’s conception of Being nor Foucault’s panopticon. Never again, please.
this might be the best post i have ever seen on vbd. thank you, varun, for making my day a little brighter
Posted from: 76.117.224.90
August 14th, 2008 21:01
when does it come out and wouldn’t it be on the nationalfl site
Posted from: 169.232.87.92
August 14th, 2008 21:02
about 5AM and yes
Posted from: 169.232.87.92
August 14th, 2008 21:11
5AM PT, that is
Posted from: 67.163.115.214
August 14th, 2008 23:32
Talked with national office today and can expect it around 8a Central Time to be posted on website. Don’t get up early.
Posted from: 70.254.6.119
August 14th, 2008 23:49
This is disappointing.
I thought the topic would’ve been released at 12am this day.
I mean, the people had all summer to choose a topic, the topic was probably chosen like a few days ago (if not longer) yet they release it at 8a?
Goodness, this is torture.
Ah well, night crew looks like we can power nap.
Posted from: 98.197.248.209
August 15th, 2008 03:39
…This is taking far too long.
Posted from: 75.134.130.223
August 15th, 2008 04:08
http://www.nflonline.org/StudentResources/Topics
This has to be a cruel joke.
Posted from: 76.204.246.62
August 15th, 2008 04:10
LOL
Posted from: 128.12.74.10
August 15th, 2008 04:12
ctheis is a cruel joke
Posted from: 169.232.69.175
August 15th, 2008 04:22
are they insane???
please tell me that this is just a horrible misspelling of “public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents,” or ANY other topic for that matter.
Posted from: 70.118.126.30
August 15th, 2008 04:42
JB represent.
Posted from: 64.183.240.17
August 15th, 2008 04:50
I swear to God, I dreamed about this happening, - it caused me to wake up and check. Unfortunately it looks like my dream predicted the future…
Posted from: 68.72.134.186
August 15th, 2008 04:50
I’m so angry, I’m going to go kill some innocent people
Posted from: 69.253.8.237
August 15th, 2008 04:54
HAHAHAH this is going to be interesting
Posted from: 68.192.165.197
August 15th, 2008 04:56
….. are you serious?
Posted from: 70.253.99.211
August 15th, 2008 20:43
post 103 is hilarious. lmao
Posted from: 69.108.103.116
August 16th, 2008 12:04
jeez after reading everyone’s comments I see I’m not the only one who didn’t want this… What r ur ideas? Besides10person which I think would be stretched. I’m thinking of a warped Malthus idea… Not sure of the details yet
Posted from: 169.232.243.158
August 16th, 2008 13:09
yeah, malthus would be an interesting neg strat.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
August 16th, 2008 13:47
MWWWWWWWWAAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
RESOLVED: IT IS MORALLY PERMISSABLE TO PISS YOU GUYS OFF WITH A BEAUTIFULL RESOLUTION!!!