1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2296
Obama was a satisfactory president overall
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
Safalcon7
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
1569
rating
12
debates
66.67%
won
Description
Satisfactory: fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
PRO concedes the least controversial assertion of the 21st century.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Just when it got interesting, a concession struck.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Concession.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Concession.
OK. No worries.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06, SirAnonymous, // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: "Concession"
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
Now, to address Safalcon's complaint in detail: "I believe I should have the edge on better sources as well. And I think that's pretty obvious from the debate."
Users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines.
To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached."
I would like to add that there are a few other potential exceptions, such as in a case where a side explicitly concedes and voters favor the conceding user in assigning arguments points. Or, a case where a FF debate is voted for in favor of the forfeiting user. Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped.
I believe I should have the edge on better sources as well. And I think that's pretty obvious from the debate.
certainly
Am I allowed to state why I decided to report comments?
Welp, that wasn't much of a fight. Then again, the way PRO defined "satisfactory" really works against them here.
If you don't wanna go further, please extend to end
If you watched Fox News at this time Obama was the worst president ever
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tinycards/image/decea8b6b8d3f0a548751be3f8d6f7d0
Good topic!
policies, public approval, image as a president, so on and so forth
Satisfactory in what sense