Instigator / Pro
7
1473
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#18

Resolved: This House would overturn United States v Darby(1941)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

This debate is intended to examine the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v Darby 312 US 100(1941).[1-Summary][2-Full Case Brief]

In this Supreme Court of the United States ruling it was decided that a Federally mandated minimum wage was constitutional, and cemented minimum wage laws from there-on to today. It should be noted that this is an examination of a court ruling, and therefore an acceptance of the validity of the framework set forth by the founding documents of the US. Basically imagine if both myself and the contender are making a case before SCOTUS today, on this very same ruling. Arguments and voting should thusly be structured accordingly.

It should also be noted that this case established the *Federal* power to mandate minimum wage laws, not states ability to. The *States* ability to was affirmed in West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish US 300 US 379(1937)[3].

Thank you for reading and Thank you to Virtuoso for agreeing to replace my previous opponent and argue in this debate instead!

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby_Lumber_Co.
[2]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/312/100
[3]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrish

Since both debaters agreed on a tie I won't vote but if I notice someone else voting, I will vote.

Ok awesome. Challenge me to the debate.

I don't mind 🤔

-->
@Buddamoose

Shit! I was almost finished my arguments. Fuck phone posting! @Budda - Mind if we tie and restart?

Glad you got it in on time! It would be a shame to forfeit the last round in an excellent debate.

Boi, I almost didn't get this in on time. Was typing it up, page auto-refreshed and deleted it when I was almost done xD.

I'm totes down for a 2a debate 🤔

I posted about Citizens United earlier in the forums, down for that too. just one at a time though 🤔

Other cases of interest:

Roe v. Wade
obergefell vs hodges

I'm in favor of both cases. Also I'd be interested in debating repeal of the second amendment

-->
@Buddamoose

Sure! I love constitutional law and legal debates. Perhaps we could do one on Cotizens United?

-->
@David

Thanks to you as well! If you wanna do another. Ur pick on case and position

I'll hold off on posting my R3 to the deadline for ya 👌👏

-->
@Buddamoose

This is one of my favorite debates of all time. Thank you for debating this with me! I've learned quite a lot from this debate!

Looks good to me

How about R1= Constructs

R2 = Construct+Rebuttal

R3= Rebuttal+Closing statement

?

Its ok you didn't compile your entire case initially btw. I see no issues with doing R1+R2 as rounds where constructs are permissed. Because of the size limitations, and the scope of what's being argued, it makes little sense to me to limit constructs to solely one round. Constructs wouldn't be nearly detailed enough at that point. Like my R1 was the main part, but theres no way I could have squeezed my entire construct in one Round xD

Thank you!

Nice round! 😰🔥This is gonna be fun 💯