Instigator / Pro
13
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
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
4
0

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
Contender / Con
24
1569
rating
12
debates
66.67%
won
Description

Satisfactory: fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect.

-->
@MisterChris

OK. No worries.

-->
@SirAnonymous
@Safalcon7
@Intelligence_06

**************************************************
>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.

-->
@MisterChris

I believe I should have the edge on better sources as well. And I think that's pretty obvious from the debate.

-->
@Safalcon7

certainly

-->
@MisterChris

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.

-->
@seldiora

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!

-->
@That1User

policies, public approval, image as a president, so on and so forth

Satisfactory in what sense