That would constitute a 50% forfeit rate and voters could vote against them without explanation. This debate had 5 rounds, only one of which Con forfeited. That’s a 20% forfeit rate, below the 40% threshold.
If you want to call RM out for deciding to put all of his arguments in R3 rather than presenting them up front to allow as much discussion of them as possible, that’s a different story. At that point you’re talking about tactics that hurt the debate, which voters can choose to award points for or not. The forfeit functions similarly - it’s a negative in the debate that voters can choose to see as point-worthy or not. They don’t automatically trigger a loss for him, though.
Forfeiting a round is not nor has it ever been treated (at least not site-wide) as automatically forfeiting the debate. People have made rules that stipulate as much, many view it as an automatic loss of conduct, and losing a round is clearly detrimental if your opponent uses that round to further their argument. That’s it. If the opponent forfeits 40% or more of their rounds, that is often viewed as forfeiting the debate and rules surrounding votes on those debates are different as a result. The same does not apply here.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (arguments and conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
RM forfeited. Bad conduct.
Arguments: Pro asked Con to define to what extent he would make abortion illegal and Pro also argued not setting a standard for what it a legal and what isn’t is akin to defending homicide (which was actually a good point). Since Con didn’t define what abortions should be legal or illegal, it was akin to defending homicide (which nobody I met defends). Con made the arguments that people would get abortions illegally; people murder illegally. This means you prosecute them. But since Con didn’t state a definition for what abortions would be legal, it was defending homicide as Pro pointed out.
All of Con’s arguments to justify abortion can be used to justify homicide from what I skimmed.
I am left on certain issues, but I’m right now right wing on abortion.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter is allowed to interpret arguments based on what's required in the description, the voter is not allowed to then state that their decision based entirely on their own view of the merits (or lack thereof) in that argument. The voter must assess arguments presented by Pro that examine problems with Con's argument and not just assume that, because Con is endorses something this voter doesn't agree with, it fails.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: ENDLESSBACKFLIP // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: better arguement
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not an RFD, doesn't explain the reasoning.
**************************************************
Much as I do think we disagree on this in part, it sounds we would be arguing over a rather small distinction between contributing and substantially contributing, and much as I think that would be fun, I don't think I'd want it to be the subject of a whole debate, since just drawing a line between our positions would be tricky. Maybe at some point we can come back to the drug debate if you're interested, though for now I don't have the time to do so.
Setting aside the fact that comparisons to pre-1969 wouldn't do you many favors, I'd contend that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was a big step in a long line of small steps starting in the early 1900's. Before that, drugs were legal and so were many of the adulterations, so while you're technically correct, the point is moot: it doesn't make for an adequate before-and-after picture.
As for a climate change debate, I guess that would depend on how you define the debate. If the argument you're making is that there could be several factors including humans that are likely contributing to climate change, then I don't think we have much of a debate. If the argument is that there isn't sufficient proof that humans substantially contribute to climate change, then we have a disagreement.
The trouble is that we're talking about an individual country here, which is the US. Full legalization of all drugs in the US has never happened. You can say point to some other country and discuss how things are going there, but there are always alternative explanations for why something is happening within that country, we can talk a lot about the political fallout of complete legalization, which is unique to the US, as are the many programs that would or would not result from legalization, and there are different ways to accomplish the same aims (say, decriminalizing and including a widescale clean needle program to reduce HIV transmission).
The pharmacology, despite being very interesting, is only a small part of the larger picture. If you wanted to debate me on this, you would spend a lot of time talking about implementation and policy direction because we'd largely be agreed on the pharmacokinetics.
I assume we agree that climate change is real, so I don't think that's likely to yield fruit for us.
Much as I think I have a case against it, I think I'll have to decline for now. It's the type of topic where a lot of what we're arguing is theoretical, which makes it hard to weigh points adequately. Perhaps we could do a different topic at some point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro (arguments and sources), 1 point to con (conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Argument points are sufficiently explained. The voter analyzes points made by both sides in the debate and compares them.
Source points are borderline sufficient. A voter is allowed to point out the presence or absence of sources in support of a given argument and, based on how important that point is to the debate in their estimation, can award source points on that basis. This case is more muddled than most as the voter acknowledges that Con has sources that support his arguments, picking out a few portions of the argument in question that he says lack support. Especially as the voter has acknowledged that at least some of the supported arguments are relevant to the debate, this seems overly specific for the purpose of awarding source points, which, like arguments, generally embody larger issues than the absence of sources for one or two subpoints made in the debate. It treads a thin line, but one that appears sufficient.
**************************************************
@RM It's late, I'll take a look at the vote tomorrow morning and we can talk about it then.
@Mps Anyone can report a vote and, when they do, the removal of said vote depends entirely on the voting standards, not on what the reporter sees as a problem with the vote. That's why we provide a link to the voting standards and specific reasons for a vote's removal. As with this one, though, the voter is welcome to add to their vote and post it again.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro (arguments and sources), 1 point to con (conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
First of all, Pro has many strong arguments for drug legalization and sources to back it up. However, his conduct is terrible. From the personal attacks by implying that Con is stupid, ignorant, and then calling him uneducated. Pro sabotaged himself with these remarks. Were it not for the quality of his sources and arguments, he would lose. Furthermore, when Pro is addressing his opponent's arguments, he needs to use the quote block text to make it legible because it makes it easier to follow what he is saying.
The fundamental problem is Con keeps making predictions with nothing to show for it. The strength of his arguments relies on the hyperbolic nature of his claims and the emotional arguments to follow up with it, but no empirical research or data. There are a few links he drops, showing the severe symptoms of drug use and the complications of trying to quit, but all of his other statements remain unsupported. He fails to address any Pro's claims such as the statistics of Portugal and Switzerland, as well as the research from Dr. Craig. He completely ignores this.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess arguments presented by both sides in the debate. Simply stating that one side had strong arguments is not sufficient, even though the voter does provide sufficient assessment of Con's arguments.
Source points are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess the strength of sources presented by both sides. Both Pro and Con did present sources, yet the voter never assesses Con's sources and only states that certain sources from Pro were dropped. While dropping sources may be relevant to their strength, it is not sufficient to state that sources were dropped in order to award these points, especially when both sides have multiple sources to consider.
**************************************************
I was very specific with regards to what was problematic about what you did. Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean that there isn't any difference.
As for Barney being afraid of drama... seriously? If you believe that, then you don't know him very well.
I'll leave it to Barney to say what he wants about his vote, but you're misunderstanding something if you think that this back and forth, as well as any resulting changes to a vote, are sufficient reason for a temporary ban. Believe it or not (and it doesn't matter who is doing it), this is above board. We've never said that a debater cannot engage with a voter on issues like this where they see misunderstandings of their argument or missed aspects of it, particularly when the voter has outright stated their flexibility as Barney did. The problem is and has been when a debater specifically directs how someone should vote on a debate and what points should be allocated to circumvent moderation, especially when that would result in more points awarded to that debater. There's a difference.
As for asking someone to "drop a vote for me," while it's bad form, it's not against the rules to seek a vote in one's favor, particularly when the person you're requesting a vote from has already posted in the comments congratulating you on your performance. It would have been better if Mps1213 had only asked Wylted to vote on the debate so that he doesn't potentially bias Wylted's vote, but that doesn't make it an actionable offense.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Better arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not an RFD. The voter doesn't explain any of their reasoning for awarding this point.
**************************************************
As for whether a vote will stand based on how they choose to award points (or not) on this specific case, I can't say until I have a reported vote. You apparently want me to clarify how I will see any vote of this nature, and I'll tell you straight up that I can't say without seeing it.
You're apparently under an incorrect perception of what my job as a mod is in cases like this. The rules are set (or not) for the debaters to follow and it's up to voters to decide whether or not they've been followed. Unless a rule is stated verbatim in the discussion, violated, and then voters ignore it outright, I have no role in enforcing anything. So, no, it is not my job to tell voters how they can interpret the absence of a rule in this debate.
I really don't want to get in the middle of this, but is this back-and-forth going to be at all fruitful? It's pretty clear where both of you stand, and if you want voters to do something about it or not, save it for the debate. Arguing about it in the comments isn't going to get either of you anywhere.
In cases like this, the debate can often come down to disagreements over the terms, so I could see taking that route. Wouldn't like doing it, but I can understand it.
It's your choice with regards to whether you want to participate on the site, but the standards for voting are there to standardize the process in some ways, otherwise people could choose to award a random number of points on virtually every debate and the whole concept of voting would be rather absurd since everyone could just award points for whatever reason they deemed fit.
Debate comes with formality. Debate comes with semantics. I understand if that's not your cup of tea, but they're part and parcel to debate to varying degrees. I don't see why voting should be any different. It's clear that you wanted something different out of this experience, but this is a debate site and, believe it or not, there is value to the kind of discussion we have here, even if it doesn't always produce solutions. None of these solutions are getting implemented in reality, and some problems don't have objective solutions that resolve everything, but we learn from the process of discussing them. That discussion comes with formalities. If that's not for you, then so be it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro didn't provide many compelling reasons for incorporating Cross-Examining.
However, Con demonstrated many reasons why Cross-Examining would be an inconvenience, such as the lack of a coding team and the overall amount of work would fall to one person. The idea that people would lose interest in the site.
Con backed up his reasoning with logical explanations. However, the forfeiting of a round merits the loss of a point.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter does provide some analysis of Con's arguments, but is required to specifically assess Pro's arguments as well. It is insufficient to state that they "didn't provide many compelling reasons" to affirm - if there were compelling reasons, the voter has to state why they were insufficient to win him the debate, and if there weren't compelling reasons, the voter has to state why they weren't compelling.
The source points are insufficiently explained. The voter doesn't assess sources presented by either side, and must assess sources presented by both to award these points.
The S&G point is insufficiently explained. The voter doesn't assess spelling or grammar in their RFD.
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. Both sides forfeited a round, yet the voter awards this point by only recognizing one of them.
**************************************************
I appreciate your giving insight into why you reported that vote and I encourage you to keep doing so in the future. That being said, please do so via PM rather than publicly posting a comment. It reveals that you were the one who submitted the report (which can lead to arguments in the comments), and it clogs up the comments, particularly if we end up discussing the reason for the report at any length.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jaay // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro, 2 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
1. Convincing argument. I gave the to pro.
a. Defining truth. The burden of proof is cons. Establishing definitions and concepts, won't prove pro isn't right about everything. Because con would have to prove truth is not subjective. Truth to one, is false to someone else. Even if they are lying, or believe they are telling the truth.
2. Reliable sources.
a. Pro stated that he was the source of all resource. Truth won't be found in a person in pro's position. Con used multiple resources to attempt proof. Pro however, had only one source. Himself.
3. Both participants used spelling and Grammer equally accurate.
4. Better Conduct.
a. This was a tough vote. They both had intriguing arguments that wasn't met with hostility or name-calling. However, because pro was the initiator of such an aggressive and immovable stance. The chasing was on con. pro's strategy was similar to a matador. Shaking a red banner in order to entice con to charge him. Pro casually moving out of the way, leaving con unsure of his own sense of direction.
Great job to you both, and good luck.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter doesn't explain why he's placing the burden of proof on Con, either by his own logic or by the logic of the debaters. The voter also appears to be imposing a burden that is not present in either side's arguments onto Con: "con would have to prove truth is not subjective." Imposing an external burden onto Con requires the voter to intervene pretty excessively. The conduct point is also unclear. The voter seems to be attributing their own unique standard for awarding conduct based on who he thought was in control of the flow of the debate, which is not a sufficient standard for awarding conduct. From the voting standards, conduct may only be:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating."
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: This doesn't really require that much of an explanation.
Pro makes bold claims but provides no valid justification to even defend any of these statements.
Meanwhile, Con remains logically consistent and offers rebuttals, demonstrating that the Burden of Proof is on Pro. Con also provides valid definitions to support said rebuttals.
Pro barely acknowledges Con's argument for that matter and even admits he skimmed it while only persisting in his self-asserted statements that he possesses the authority to decide fundamentally what is right or wrong.
Con wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote is borderline with regards to arguments and sources, the former because the voter does talk about BoP and the lack of support for Pro's statements. Normally, voters should provide some specific analysis of arguments made by each side, but given the focus on BoP and general failings in that regard, this would still stand as an instance of a foregone conclusion. Similarly, while the voter doesn't explicitly state that they are awarding points based on the citing of definitions that clarify the debate, it's still pretty clear that that's the reason for awarding sources. On conduct, however, the voter provides only limited justification and it is insufficient. A debater's decision not to acknowledge an opposing argument is not sufficient reason to award this point, nor is his persistence in supporting the resolution, no matter how authoritative he claims to be.
**************************************************
I'd say that making it unrated should work, though I think you'd get more interest in this debate and be able to keep it rated if you just translate it all to English. I'm not sure what your purpose is in having a debate about the morality of popping soap bubbles in German instead of English, but if that is what you want to do and someone does accept it, this should be unrated.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro's argument is highly conditional and fails to meet his original claim. He states that as long as one is playing Among Us than setting your computer on fire will increase performance. This claim isn't backed up by any evidence or even reasoning.
Con forfeited his argument, but Pro holds the BoP by making the positive claim.
Con wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a full forfeit debate given that one side did not present an argument at all. In the presence of arguments from both sides, the voter has leeway to discuss BoP and how it applies to a given side, as well as the presence or absence of warrants and evidence. This degree of scrutiny may still be warranted when the opponent forfeits their one and only opportunity to respond, but it is not sufficient reason to award points when compared with a full forfeit.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jaay // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro's argument chose specifically to not specify anything that he is right about or anything others are wrong. He insisted on "Living Authentically" while maintaining his "bad faith" in the Con's position as well as everyone's position. Keeping true to Existentialism.
Best.Korea's pro stance was based on the philosophy of existentialism. In which Plato and Aristotle began explaining how a person is predestined to have a purpose. However, the philosophy changed over time,
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does” – John-Paul Sartre
Sartre spoke of the burden of too much freedom. Existentialists considered that people will have so much freedom that they must find their way, which Sartre called "Living Authentic."
Modern Existentialists began defining "absurdity" as the search for answers in an answerless world. It’s the idea of being born into a meaningless place that then requires you to make meaning. That authority isn't true authority, because authority are people just like you, trying to find answers that have no answers.
If you choose to live by someone else’s rules, be that anywhere between religion and the wishes of your parents, then you are refusing to accept the absurd. Sartre named this refusal “bad faith”, as you are choosing to live by someone else’s definition of meaning and purpose – not your own.
Because Best.Korea only specified all things, he by being pure to existentialism only he can define what is right and what is wrong. The con was fighting a war that has been raging for thousands of years.
However, if I may Best.Korea. With all due respect to the brilliance your argument implies. There is a flaw in the these teachings. A flaw like many flaws that are built into the design of the philosophy behind the meaning of life. Like the Death Star in Star wars. Once exploited, everything falls apart.
That is the perspective of the collective. Imagine. If you were observing the earth from a microscope. Zoom out to see the planet, then zoom more to see the universe our earth exists in. Then, Imagine a giant observing you. Observing earth. Then, so and so on. At some point, our universe is no longer even an observable particle. We are as theoretic as the giants I speak about now. In a cycle of infinite giants we could observe in a microscope as they could observe us. Zooming in and/or out into perpetual infinite.
Now. How do you feel about being right or wrong? Would it matter to the collective?
In other words, in doesn't matter to argue if someone is right or wrong about everything. Without considering the collective, there would be nothing to be right or wrong about. If a tree falls in the Forrest and swears to God it happened. Would it matter to Forrest? If there was no forest, would the tree even exist to tell it's tale of woe?
All we are, is all we all are.
-Kurt Cobain.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote appears to be a stream of consciousness about the philosophy of the debate, which doesn't include much in the way of analysis regarding the given arguments. The voter seems to entirely transform Pro's arguments by largely claiming that Pro implied these philosophers and their teachings in his argument without explanation, throws out a single line about Con's argument that doesn't appear to assess it at all, and then awards arguments and conduct without any apparent rhyme or reason. This belongs in a forum post or in the comments; it is not a vote.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AustinL0926 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter refers to an portion of the debate (in this case, the description) that he believes inherently functions as a concession of the debate before any argument is given. He also directly addresses Pro's arguments, dismissing them as irrelevant. That is sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to an portion of the debate (in this case, the description) that he believes inherently functions as a concession of the debate before any argument is given. While some assessment of Pro's argument would have improved this vote, since the purported concession is present in the description, doing so would apparently not have affected the voter's decision, so this is sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Con has a clear argument. 'Pro-choice' entails supporting the legal right for a mother to choose whether or not to have an abortion, whereas 'for abortion' entails preferring abortion to other options.
Con also has better legibility. Quote blocks are far superior to quotation marks when it comes to quoting your opponents arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must provide some assessment of both sides' arguments, even if those assessments are general. The voter awards points without any stated assessment of Pro's arguments, so the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************
I won't comment on how effective Intelligence's delineation is between those two topics (I'll save that for the RFD), though I will say that I understand where Intelligence is coming from, whether it affects the outcome of this debate or not.
Having written several literature reviews and continuing to work in a field where examining existing research is a required part of the job, paywalls are the bane of my existence, so I wholeheartedly agree.
Yes, I would be arguing that they did slow the spread, though there are other facets we could choose to explore if you wish. Worth discussing this after the debate ends.
I'll vote on this debate and do my best to leave my personal opinions that I'll try to leave out of my RFD, though I'll admit that some of these interpretations of the research are... interesting.
Fewer still will take a debate where the instigator has explicitly stated that they will define the terms in their opening round, most likely to their great favor. This will either become a semantic debate where your opponent makes hay out of the extreme definitions you will almost certainly provide, your opponent will just run a Kritik, or they’ll just forfeit every round.
If you want a well resourced, thorough examination of the issue as your description suggests, then be straight up with your definitions and provide them in the description.
I initially thought you were just perplexed by how I came to a certain conclusion, but now, it's pretty clear you just don't like my view of the debate. That's fine, we often disagree and you chalk it up to "voter incompetence", so if this is all you're interested in doing once again, then I'm not interested in continuing this conversation.
I'll point out, though, that when your opponent presents a new rebuttal in the final round, e.g. Pro's point that "There is a huge difference between how morals, science, and politics are determined and how language is", you have the opportunity to rebut that point in your final round. New rebuttals are fine in the final round, new constructive arguments are not allowed. There's a difference. If you want to be technical, presenting new rebuttals to points made before the previous round is usually out of bounds, but most people on this site get away with it, and that wouldn't have been the case here, anyway. I'll also note that debaters are welcome to present new constructive arguments in their second constructive round so long as it isn’t the final. Just because it upsets you that Pro did it doesn't mean that he was wrong to do it.
That’s not a truism. It’s a truism to argue that what’s most popular would be appreciated by the most people. It’s not a truism to argue that what’s popular is best because popularity begets trends in definitions, and that those trends are the most pressing concern in this debate. I’ll also note that I didn’t vote on even this argument that popularity is automatically superior, but rather on the basis that this pronunciation’s popularity links to greater reduction in confusion. So, please shelve the self-righteous indignation about what I’m enabling when I specifically and directly stated that I wasn’t picking him up on what you’re claiming is a truism.
Also, I’m surprised I have to say this, but if your opponent presents a new rebuttal in their final round (which they are allowed to do), you are similarly allowed to rebut that final round rebuttal in your final round. Just because you didn’t take the opportunity does not mean it wasn’t available to you.
From what I can tell, you tried two tacks with it. First was to just call it a truism, which I just don't agree is the case. It's not a truism to argue that popularity should be paramount in determining how GIF should be pronounced. Second, you argued that since other popular ideas as regards science, morals and politics were still wrong, popularity doesn't indicate how one should proceed. I agreed with the latter initially, but Pro effectively argued in his final round that language is a distinct category. I don't see a response to that in your final round, so I'd say that while you sufficiently handled it up front, you didn't sufficiently defend your handling of it.
And before you start into it, yes, I see the later portion where you cite a website and state your own opinion on chromosomes and new arrangements of DNA as a basis for stating that this is the beginning of a person. I get that that is your opinion and even that it is broadly shared. I’m trying to understand how someone who clearly rejects using traits as a basis for awarding personhood is doing just that. I’m also trying to understand how, if this is the view of most scientists, they justify that view on the basis of certain traits, especially when you agreed that science lacks that capacity.
"To you, the question of its humanity is up for debate, although science places the start of a new, distinct individual human being at conception and fertilization.”
We just agreed that this isn’t true. It’s the reason we had that whole beginning argument, the reason I kept pressing you. Your answer to it was the reason I finally was willing to move on and give my full position so that we could discuss it in detail. If science hasn’t designated which traits are necessary to the beginning of “a new, distinct individual human being,” then science cannot determine when that human being/person starts. If we are no longer agreed on this, then tell me what those traits are that distinguish what is a human being/person from anything else. I'll delay any other responses until we rectify this, one way or the other.
Glad you both appreciated it.
That would constitute a 50% forfeit rate and voters could vote against them without explanation. This debate had 5 rounds, only one of which Con forfeited. That’s a 20% forfeit rate, below the 40% threshold.
If you want to call RM out for deciding to put all of his arguments in R3 rather than presenting them up front to allow as much discussion of them as possible, that’s a different story. At that point you’re talking about tactics that hurt the debate, which voters can choose to award points for or not. The forfeit functions similarly - it’s a negative in the debate that voters can choose to see as point-worthy or not. They don’t automatically trigger a loss for him, though.
Forfeiting a round is not nor has it ever been treated (at least not site-wide) as automatically forfeiting the debate. People have made rules that stipulate as much, many view it as an automatic loss of conduct, and losing a round is clearly detrimental if your opponent uses that round to further their argument. That’s it. If the opponent forfeits 40% or more of their rounds, that is often viewed as forfeiting the debate and rules surrounding votes on those debates are different as a result. The same does not apply here.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (arguments and conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
RM forfeited. Bad conduct.
Arguments: Pro asked Con to define to what extent he would make abortion illegal and Pro also argued not setting a standard for what it a legal and what isn’t is akin to defending homicide (which was actually a good point). Since Con didn’t define what abortions should be legal or illegal, it was akin to defending homicide (which nobody I met defends). Con made the arguments that people would get abortions illegally; people murder illegally. This means you prosecute them. But since Con didn’t state a definition for what abortions would be legal, it was defending homicide as Pro pointed out.
All of Con’s arguments to justify abortion can be used to justify homicide from what I skimmed.
I am left on certain issues, but I’m right now right wing on abortion.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter is allowed to interpret arguments based on what's required in the description, the voter is not allowed to then state that their decision based entirely on their own view of the merits (or lack thereof) in that argument. The voter must assess arguments presented by Pro that examine problems with Con's argument and not just assume that, because Con is endorses something this voter doesn't agree with, it fails.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: ENDLESSBACKFLIP // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: better arguement
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not an RFD, doesn't explain the reasoning.
**************************************************
Much as I do think we disagree on this in part, it sounds we would be arguing over a rather small distinction between contributing and substantially contributing, and much as I think that would be fun, I don't think I'd want it to be the subject of a whole debate, since just drawing a line between our positions would be tricky. Maybe at some point we can come back to the drug debate if you're interested, though for now I don't have the time to do so.
Setting aside the fact that comparisons to pre-1969 wouldn't do you many favors, I'd contend that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was a big step in a long line of small steps starting in the early 1900's. Before that, drugs were legal and so were many of the adulterations, so while you're technically correct, the point is moot: it doesn't make for an adequate before-and-after picture.
As for a climate change debate, I guess that would depend on how you define the debate. If the argument you're making is that there could be several factors including humans that are likely contributing to climate change, then I don't think we have much of a debate. If the argument is that there isn't sufficient proof that humans substantially contribute to climate change, then we have a disagreement.
The trouble is that we're talking about an individual country here, which is the US. Full legalization of all drugs in the US has never happened. You can say point to some other country and discuss how things are going there, but there are always alternative explanations for why something is happening within that country, we can talk a lot about the political fallout of complete legalization, which is unique to the US, as are the many programs that would or would not result from legalization, and there are different ways to accomplish the same aims (say, decriminalizing and including a widescale clean needle program to reduce HIV transmission).
The pharmacology, despite being very interesting, is only a small part of the larger picture. If you wanted to debate me on this, you would spend a lot of time talking about implementation and policy direction because we'd largely be agreed on the pharmacokinetics.
I assume we agree that climate change is real, so I don't think that's likely to yield fruit for us.
Much as I think I have a case against it, I think I'll have to decline for now. It's the type of topic where a lot of what we're arguing is theoretical, which makes it hard to weigh points adequately. Perhaps we could do a different topic at some point.
I should have time over the course of the day tomorrow, and yes, I'm willing.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro (arguments and sources), 1 point to con (conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Argument points are sufficiently explained. The voter analyzes points made by both sides in the debate and compares them.
Source points are borderline sufficient. A voter is allowed to point out the presence or absence of sources in support of a given argument and, based on how important that point is to the debate in their estimation, can award source points on that basis. This case is more muddled than most as the voter acknowledges that Con has sources that support his arguments, picking out a few portions of the argument in question that he says lack support. Especially as the voter has acknowledged that at least some of the supported arguments are relevant to the debate, this seems overly specific for the purpose of awarding source points, which, like arguments, generally embody larger issues than the absence of sources for one or two subpoints made in the debate. It treads a thin line, but one that appears sufficient.
**************************************************
Sorry to hear about your illness, but glad you’re feeling better.
@RM It's late, I'll take a look at the vote tomorrow morning and we can talk about it then.
@Mps Anyone can report a vote and, when they do, the removal of said vote depends entirely on the voting standards, not on what the reporter sees as a problem with the vote. That's why we provide a link to the voting standards and specific reasons for a vote's removal. As with this one, though, the voter is welcome to add to their vote and post it again.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro (arguments and sources), 1 point to con (conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
First of all, Pro has many strong arguments for drug legalization and sources to back it up. However, his conduct is terrible. From the personal attacks by implying that Con is stupid, ignorant, and then calling him uneducated. Pro sabotaged himself with these remarks. Were it not for the quality of his sources and arguments, he would lose. Furthermore, when Pro is addressing his opponent's arguments, he needs to use the quote block text to make it legible because it makes it easier to follow what he is saying.
The fundamental problem is Con keeps making predictions with nothing to show for it. The strength of his arguments relies on the hyperbolic nature of his claims and the emotional arguments to follow up with it, but no empirical research or data. There are a few links he drops, showing the severe symptoms of drug use and the complications of trying to quit, but all of his other statements remain unsupported. He fails to address any Pro's claims such as the statistics of Portugal and Switzerland, as well as the research from Dr. Craig. He completely ignores this.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess arguments presented by both sides in the debate. Simply stating that one side had strong arguments is not sufficient, even though the voter does provide sufficient assessment of Con's arguments.
Source points are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess the strength of sources presented by both sides. Both Pro and Con did present sources, yet the voter never assesses Con's sources and only states that certain sources from Pro were dropped. While dropping sources may be relevant to their strength, it is not sufficient to state that sources were dropped in order to award these points, especially when both sides have multiple sources to consider.
**************************************************
I was very specific with regards to what was problematic about what you did. Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean that there isn't any difference.
As for Barney being afraid of drama... seriously? If you believe that, then you don't know him very well.
I'll leave it to Barney to say what he wants about his vote, but you're misunderstanding something if you think that this back and forth, as well as any resulting changes to a vote, are sufficient reason for a temporary ban. Believe it or not (and it doesn't matter who is doing it), this is above board. We've never said that a debater cannot engage with a voter on issues like this where they see misunderstandings of their argument or missed aspects of it, particularly when the voter has outright stated their flexibility as Barney did. The problem is and has been when a debater specifically directs how someone should vote on a debate and what points should be allocated to circumvent moderation, especially when that would result in more points awarded to that debater. There's a difference.
As for asking someone to "drop a vote for me," while it's bad form, it's not against the rules to seek a vote in one's favor, particularly when the person you're requesting a vote from has already posted in the comments congratulating you on your performance. It would have been better if Mps1213 had only asked Wylted to vote on the debate so that he doesn't potentially bias Wylted's vote, but that doesn't make it an actionable offense.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Better arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not an RFD. The voter doesn't explain any of their reasoning for awarding this point.
**************************************************
As for whether a vote will stand based on how they choose to award points (or not) on this specific case, I can't say until I have a reported vote. You apparently want me to clarify how I will see any vote of this nature, and I'll tell you straight up that I can't say without seeing it.
You're apparently under an incorrect perception of what my job as a mod is in cases like this. The rules are set (or not) for the debaters to follow and it's up to voters to decide whether or not they've been followed. Unless a rule is stated verbatim in the discussion, violated, and then voters ignore it outright, I have no role in enforcing anything. So, no, it is not my job to tell voters how they can interpret the absence of a rule in this debate.
I've got mixed feelings about it, and I'll leave it at that.
I really don't want to get in the middle of this, but is this back-and-forth going to be at all fruitful? It's pretty clear where both of you stand, and if you want voters to do something about it or not, save it for the debate. Arguing about it in the comments isn't going to get either of you anywhere.
Was traveling a lot of yesterday, so I didn't a chance to vote. Probably would have gone the same way, though.
In cases like this, the debate can often come down to disagreements over the terms, so I could see taking that route. Wouldn't like doing it, but I can understand it.
It's your choice with regards to whether you want to participate on the site, but the standards for voting are there to standardize the process in some ways, otherwise people could choose to award a random number of points on virtually every debate and the whole concept of voting would be rather absurd since everyone could just award points for whatever reason they deemed fit.
Debate comes with formality. Debate comes with semantics. I understand if that's not your cup of tea, but they're part and parcel to debate to varying degrees. I don't see why voting should be any different. It's clear that you wanted something different out of this experience, but this is a debate site and, believe it or not, there is value to the kind of discussion we have here, even if it doesn't always produce solutions. None of these solutions are getting implemented in reality, and some problems don't have objective solutions that resolve everything, but we learn from the process of discussing them. That discussion comes with formalities. If that's not for you, then so be it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro didn't provide many compelling reasons for incorporating Cross-Examining.
However, Con demonstrated many reasons why Cross-Examining would be an inconvenience, such as the lack of a coding team and the overall amount of work would fall to one person. The idea that people would lose interest in the site.
Con backed up his reasoning with logical explanations. However, the forfeiting of a round merits the loss of a point.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter does provide some analysis of Con's arguments, but is required to specifically assess Pro's arguments as well. It is insufficient to state that they "didn't provide many compelling reasons" to affirm - if there were compelling reasons, the voter has to state why they were insufficient to win him the debate, and if there weren't compelling reasons, the voter has to state why they weren't compelling.
The source points are insufficiently explained. The voter doesn't assess sources presented by either side, and must assess sources presented by both to award these points.
The S&G point is insufficiently explained. The voter doesn't assess spelling or grammar in their RFD.
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. Both sides forfeited a round, yet the voter awards this point by only recognizing one of them.
**************************************************
I appreciate your giving insight into why you reported that vote and I encourage you to keep doing so in the future. That being said, please do so via PM rather than publicly posting a comment. It reveals that you were the one who submitted the report (which can lead to arguments in the comments), and it clogs up the comments, particularly if we end up discussing the reason for the report at any length.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jaay // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro, 2 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
1. Convincing argument. I gave the to pro.
a. Defining truth. The burden of proof is cons. Establishing definitions and concepts, won't prove pro isn't right about everything. Because con would have to prove truth is not subjective. Truth to one, is false to someone else. Even if they are lying, or believe they are telling the truth.
2. Reliable sources.
a. Pro stated that he was the source of all resource. Truth won't be found in a person in pro's position. Con used multiple resources to attempt proof. Pro however, had only one source. Himself.
3. Both participants used spelling and Grammer equally accurate.
4. Better Conduct.
a. This was a tough vote. They both had intriguing arguments that wasn't met with hostility or name-calling. However, because pro was the initiator of such an aggressive and immovable stance. The chasing was on con. pro's strategy was similar to a matador. Shaking a red banner in order to entice con to charge him. Pro casually moving out of the way, leaving con unsure of his own sense of direction.
Great job to you both, and good luck.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter doesn't explain why he's placing the burden of proof on Con, either by his own logic or by the logic of the debaters. The voter also appears to be imposing a burden that is not present in either side's arguments onto Con: "con would have to prove truth is not subjective." Imposing an external burden onto Con requires the voter to intervene pretty excessively. The conduct point is also unclear. The voter seems to be attributing their own unique standard for awarding conduct based on who he thought was in control of the flow of the debate, which is not a sufficient standard for awarding conduct. From the voting standards, conduct may only be:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating."
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: This doesn't really require that much of an explanation.
Pro makes bold claims but provides no valid justification to even defend any of these statements.
Meanwhile, Con remains logically consistent and offers rebuttals, demonstrating that the Burden of Proof is on Pro. Con also provides valid definitions to support said rebuttals.
Pro barely acknowledges Con's argument for that matter and even admits he skimmed it while only persisting in his self-asserted statements that he possesses the authority to decide fundamentally what is right or wrong.
Con wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote is borderline with regards to arguments and sources, the former because the voter does talk about BoP and the lack of support for Pro's statements. Normally, voters should provide some specific analysis of arguments made by each side, but given the focus on BoP and general failings in that regard, this would still stand as an instance of a foregone conclusion. Similarly, while the voter doesn't explicitly state that they are awarding points based on the citing of definitions that clarify the debate, it's still pretty clear that that's the reason for awarding sources. On conduct, however, the voter provides only limited justification and it is insufficient. A debater's decision not to acknowledge an opposing argument is not sufficient reason to award this point, nor is his persistence in supporting the resolution, no matter how authoritative he claims to be.
**************************************************
I'd say that making it unrated should work, though I think you'd get more interest in this debate and be able to keep it rated if you just translate it all to English. I'm not sure what your purpose is in having a debate about the morality of popping soap bubbles in German instead of English, but if that is what you want to do and someone does accept it, this should be unrated.
Not even close, though it was substantial.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro's argument is highly conditional and fails to meet his original claim. He states that as long as one is playing Among Us than setting your computer on fire will increase performance. This claim isn't backed up by any evidence or even reasoning.
Con forfeited his argument, but Pro holds the BoP by making the positive claim.
Con wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a full forfeit debate given that one side did not present an argument at all. In the presence of arguments from both sides, the voter has leeway to discuss BoP and how it applies to a given side, as well as the presence or absence of warrants and evidence. This degree of scrutiny may still be warranted when the opponent forfeits their one and only opportunity to respond, but it is not sufficient reason to award points when compared with a full forfeit.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jaay // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro's argument chose specifically to not specify anything that he is right about or anything others are wrong. He insisted on "Living Authentically" while maintaining his "bad faith" in the Con's position as well as everyone's position. Keeping true to Existentialism.
Best.Korea's pro stance was based on the philosophy of existentialism. In which Plato and Aristotle began explaining how a person is predestined to have a purpose. However, the philosophy changed over time,
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does” – John-Paul Sartre
Sartre spoke of the burden of too much freedom. Existentialists considered that people will have so much freedom that they must find their way, which Sartre called "Living Authentic."
Modern Existentialists began defining "absurdity" as the search for answers in an answerless world. It’s the idea of being born into a meaningless place that then requires you to make meaning. That authority isn't true authority, because authority are people just like you, trying to find answers that have no answers.
If you choose to live by someone else’s rules, be that anywhere between religion and the wishes of your parents, then you are refusing to accept the absurd. Sartre named this refusal “bad faith”, as you are choosing to live by someone else’s definition of meaning and purpose – not your own.
Because Best.Korea only specified all things, he by being pure to existentialism only he can define what is right and what is wrong. The con was fighting a war that has been raging for thousands of years.
However, if I may Best.Korea. With all due respect to the brilliance your argument implies. There is a flaw in the these teachings. A flaw like many flaws that are built into the design of the philosophy behind the meaning of life. Like the Death Star in Star wars. Once exploited, everything falls apart.
That is the perspective of the collective. Imagine. If you were observing the earth from a microscope. Zoom out to see the planet, then zoom more to see the universe our earth exists in. Then, Imagine a giant observing you. Observing earth. Then, so and so on. At some point, our universe is no longer even an observable particle. We are as theoretic as the giants I speak about now. In a cycle of infinite giants we could observe in a microscope as they could observe us. Zooming in and/or out into perpetual infinite.
Now. How do you feel about being right or wrong? Would it matter to the collective?
In other words, in doesn't matter to argue if someone is right or wrong about everything. Without considering the collective, there would be nothing to be right or wrong about. If a tree falls in the Forrest and swears to God it happened. Would it matter to Forrest? If there was no forest, would the tree even exist to tell it's tale of woe?
All we are, is all we all are.
-Kurt Cobain.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote appears to be a stream of consciousness about the philosophy of the debate, which doesn't include much in the way of analysis regarding the given arguments. The voter seems to entirely transform Pro's arguments by largely claiming that Pro implied these philosophers and their teachings in his argument without explanation, throws out a single line about Con's argument that doesn't appear to assess it at all, and then awards arguments and conduct without any apparent rhyme or reason. This belongs in a forum post or in the comments; it is not a vote.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AustinL0926 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter refers to an portion of the debate (in this case, the description) that he believes inherently functions as a concession of the debate before any argument is given. He also directly addresses Pro's arguments, dismissing them as irrelevant. That is sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to an portion of the debate (in this case, the description) that he believes inherently functions as a concession of the debate before any argument is given. While some assessment of Pro's argument would have improved this vote, since the purported concession is present in the description, doing so would apparently not have affected the voter's decision, so this is sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Con has a clear argument. 'Pro-choice' entails supporting the legal right for a mother to choose whether or not to have an abortion, whereas 'for abortion' entails preferring abortion to other options.
Con also has better legibility. Quote blocks are far superior to quotation marks when it comes to quoting your opponents arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must provide some assessment of both sides' arguments, even if those assessments are general. The voter awards points without any stated assessment of Pro's arguments, so the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************
I won't comment on how effective Intelligence's delineation is between those two topics (I'll save that for the RFD), though I will say that I understand where Intelligence is coming from, whether it affects the outcome of this debate or not.
Done
Having written several literature reviews and continuing to work in a field where examining existing research is a required part of the job, paywalls are the bane of my existence, so I wholeheartedly agree.
Needless to say, this is my jam, so I’m looking forward to it as well.
Yes, I would be arguing that they did slow the spread, though there are other facets we could choose to explore if you wish. Worth discussing this after the debate ends.
I'd be down for that.
I'll vote on this debate and do my best to leave my personal opinions that I'll try to leave out of my RFD, though I'll admit that some of these interpretations of the research are... interesting.
Fewer still will take a debate where the instigator has explicitly stated that they will define the terms in their opening round, most likely to their great favor. This will either become a semantic debate where your opponent makes hay out of the extreme definitions you will almost certainly provide, your opponent will just run a Kritik, or they’ll just forfeit every round.
If you want a well resourced, thorough examination of the issue as your description suggests, then be straight up with your definitions and provide them in the description.
I initially thought you were just perplexed by how I came to a certain conclusion, but now, it's pretty clear you just don't like my view of the debate. That's fine, we often disagree and you chalk it up to "voter incompetence", so if this is all you're interested in doing once again, then I'm not interested in continuing this conversation.
I'll point out, though, that when your opponent presents a new rebuttal in the final round, e.g. Pro's point that "There is a huge difference between how morals, science, and politics are determined and how language is", you have the opportunity to rebut that point in your final round. New rebuttals are fine in the final round, new constructive arguments are not allowed. There's a difference. If you want to be technical, presenting new rebuttals to points made before the previous round is usually out of bounds, but most people on this site get away with it, and that wouldn't have been the case here, anyway. I'll also note that debaters are welcome to present new constructive arguments in their second constructive round so long as it isn’t the final. Just because it upsets you that Pro did it doesn't mean that he was wrong to do it.
That’s not a truism. It’s a truism to argue that what’s most popular would be appreciated by the most people. It’s not a truism to argue that what’s popular is best because popularity begets trends in definitions, and that those trends are the most pressing concern in this debate. I’ll also note that I didn’t vote on even this argument that popularity is automatically superior, but rather on the basis that this pronunciation’s popularity links to greater reduction in confusion. So, please shelve the self-righteous indignation about what I’m enabling when I specifically and directly stated that I wasn’t picking him up on what you’re claiming is a truism.
Also, I’m surprised I have to say this, but if your opponent presents a new rebuttal in their final round (which they are allowed to do), you are similarly allowed to rebut that final round rebuttal in your final round. Just because you didn’t take the opportunity does not mean it wasn’t available to you.
From what I can tell, you tried two tacks with it. First was to just call it a truism, which I just don't agree is the case. It's not a truism to argue that popularity should be paramount in determining how GIF should be pronounced. Second, you argued that since other popular ideas as regards science, morals and politics were still wrong, popularity doesn't indicate how one should proceed. I agreed with the latter initially, but Pro effectively argued in his final round that language is a distinct category. I don't see a response to that in your final round, so I'd say that while you sufficiently handled it up front, you didn't sufficiently defend your handling of it.
I'll try to get to it.
And before you start into it, yes, I see the later portion where you cite a website and state your own opinion on chromosomes and new arrangements of DNA as a basis for stating that this is the beginning of a person. I get that that is your opinion and even that it is broadly shared. I’m trying to understand how someone who clearly rejects using traits as a basis for awarding personhood is doing just that. I’m also trying to understand how, if this is the view of most scientists, they justify that view on the basis of certain traits, especially when you agreed that science lacks that capacity.
I started a long response, then I saw this:
"To you, the question of its humanity is up for debate, although science places the start of a new, distinct individual human being at conception and fertilization.”
We just agreed that this isn’t true. It’s the reason we had that whole beginning argument, the reason I kept pressing you. Your answer to it was the reason I finally was willing to move on and give my full position so that we could discuss it in detail. If science hasn’t designated which traits are necessary to the beginning of “a new, distinct individual human being,” then science cannot determine when that human being/person starts. If we are no longer agreed on this, then tell me what those traits are that distinguish what is a human being/person from anything else. I'll delay any other responses until we rectify this, one way or the other.
Remind me about it in the coming weeks and I should be able to manage.