Instigator / Pro
12
1473
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#8

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
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
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
21
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
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 case 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. Con has full use and benefit of the principle of stare decisis in legal decision making. Legal arguments take priority, but, the harms and benefits of minimum wage are wholly applicable to argumentation. Basically imagine if both myself and the contender are making a case before SCOTUS today, on this very same ruling. Arguments 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 best of luck to whomever accepts this debate!

[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

Go take another nap and worry about your own issues.

After taking a nap. I'm sorry for the name-calling. Still consider it accurate, there was a better way to communicate what I was trying to regarding reciprocating what you fed me.

"Such as me questioning your reasoning behind SCOTUS being entitled to override what the other 2 branches agreed on? Yeah that was Devil's Advocate prodding at your side, not unethical I'm glad we can agree"

Bringing up Judicial Review was not unethical. "Devil's Advocate" is not an accurate defense of your actions, because I never said that was unethical. It was if anything humorous because you questioned SCOTUS authority to overturn law, when that authority was itself granted by legislation.

You admitted a total willingness to act unethically, actually did so in deciding to slander me regarding 1) implying I underestimate you(something you still claim)
2) claiming lack of good faith acting ("lack of effort"

"To some my ban may seem like luck, but others will know there's a strategy behind my madness"

"Don't you dare drop your guard against me"

"Its a war"

"I'll do what I need(to win)"

"Your lack of strategy"

Hoss, simmer down with the ego stroking and realize, the more you speak, the more you sound like you actually did cheat 😂.

It's absurd that you did, def some post facto justification, but oh boy, take a deep breath, maybe take a nap like I did? Did wonders for my crankiness 😂😂

"Never said you cheated here"
You did.
"are willing to act unethically and cheat to win."

never said you cheated *here*
*are willing to act*

>here(in debate)
>Are willing to
Thanks
You understand, thats not the same thing 🤔

That all you got? Am I supposed to think there'll be a consequence?

Don't you dare drop your guard again against me. Fear me to the core of your being or lose every time.

I fear and respect all my opponents and that is why I'm so much better than all of them. When you are coming up with a rebuttal to me or an argument for the resolution, I already knew you'd come up with it and how to perfectly counter it.

Here's the thing. You are right, I'm being a dick, because I'm reciprocating what you gave me.

This debate started out fine, fairly respectful on both sides, total overuse of buzzwords when arguing aside. Then you get banned, it was disappointing. I asked why you were, pointed out in forums there didn't appear to be a good reason for doing so as of yet.

You then come back, attribute to me nefariousness and ill intent with "underestimating" and "think I'm crazy". Congrats, I actually do think that now, way to go bringing about the same outcome you complained about.

Then proceed to continue acting like a dick in attributing poor faith in debating, "lack of effort" despite there being clear and good reason to cancel/restart.

But no, ever the one to chase the W at all costs, you refuse to cancel the debate, and insist we continue this, AND restart anew simultaneous. Again, rather unethical considering the debate was derailed *by you getting banned*.

You then proceed to be a dick by stating in R3 that I said, despite never actually doing so, that I conceded due to your arguments being superior.

And you call me a liar despite me accurately paraphrasing? Here's the thing, you could've been respectful and been like, hey, this debate got derailed, my opponent has decided to concede due to starting this same debate up with another. Just couldn't do that could you? Just couldn't help but be a dick.

I'm calling you a dick because it is a 100% accurate term for your behavior. That I'm reciprocating it back unto you may be wrong on my part, but it is funny to watch you dance around admitting you are what im saying you are 😂

The ToS were written after I got banned anyway and are not even confirmed as Virtuoso wrote them.

If you think I have violated terms of service go ahead and report me to the admin. Then read what you have written here and how you've spoken to me and ask yourself who is violating the rule of 'don't be a dick' and then kindly shut the f*** up and get lost.

Sure thing bud, you do understand near any site has codes of conduct users are expected to follow? And you just admitted, again, to be fully willing to act as unethical, and do whatever you need(that would rationally include cheating if necessary) to win.

Even ignoring the latter implications, admission of willingness to act as unethically as necessary is probably going to fly in the face of any terms of service or ethical code of conduct.

You are a dick not because you lie but that is part of it yes, 'dicks' often do lie as part of their verbal harassment.

You said I was lying, "or your lies"

Last i checked, "you are a liar" =\= you are a dick. There's that wit of yours shining through again 😂😂

You reserve judgement because there will be zero consequence for what I have admitted here. You will look over-emotional and easy to trigger and that's about it.

You need not have cheated here to show your hand. You've given every indication to hold that you would, if given the opportunity and means to do so, while consequentially getting away with it.

Just as with being unethical, you had the opportunity, the means, and figured you could get away with it and get a W, so you did it.

You can have the W, I would reserve judgement on potential consequences for admitting willingness to act in such a manner 🤔

"You're calling me a dick and I'm not!" is what you just did right there just before saying I did it.

If I lack effort and strategy and you lost to me then either I got lucky or you are wrong. Considering my track record so far on this site, it's apparent I have strategy even if it isn't taking me much effort to have such excellent strategy.

"Never said you cheated here"
You did.
"are willing to act unethically and cheat to win."
You separated it from the 'unethical' and added it on to the list of accusations.

"Devil's advocate is when you argue for something you disagree with. Devil's advocate is not, however, acting in an unethical manner when debating."
Such as me questioning your reasoning behind SCOTUS being entitled to override what the other 2 branches agreed on? Yeah that was Devil's Advocate prodding at your side, not unethical I'm glad we can agree.

"You accuse me of projection but every time you call me a dick, it tends to be that the post before and after you calling me a dick make it quite blatant which of the two of us is more so a 'dick'."

I'm calling you one for more than good reason, for which ive clearly elaborated. "Your calling me a dick, and im not!"

Is so lulz. What are you 5? Consider: I'm calling you as such because you actually are in this situation,

mr, "lack of effort and strategy".

"There is no cheating, playing devil's advocate is not cheating."

Never said you cheated here, said you acted highly unethically. While also admitting you would willingly cheat to obtain a W.

" I will do what I need"
"Debate is a war, its a battle"

"To many my ban and unban will be luck. To those who know, there is strategy behind my insanity."

Yes, that strategy is taking advantage of yourself getting banned and how that consequentially that derailed the debate. This clearly implies if you could, you would take such a course of action to derail a debate as a means to do what you need to secure a W.

Also, newsflash, "There is no cheating, playing devil's advocate is not cheating"

Devil's advocate is when you argue for something you disagree with. Devil's advocate is not, however, acting in an unethical manner when debating.

There is no cheating, playing devil's advocate is not cheating.

You accuse me of projection but every time you call me a dick, it tends to be that the post before and after you calling me a dick make it quite blatant which of the two of us is more so a 'dick'.

"or your lies"

Phew, classic projection,

" I will do what I need to in order to bring as much doubt onto your side and confidence in my side."

Ive not lied here, but you sure have and admitted to having zero issue doing so 🔥

Sure bud, whatever you gotta tell yourself to justify you being a dick 😂😂

And if it's ok to you to do whatever it takes, why take personal offense to my rebuttal, as denoted by the whining about people underestimating you and thinking ur crazy.

If you wanna know why they think the latter, look at this conversation right here, this is your answer. thanks for fully admitting you are willing to act unethically and cheat to win. 😂😂

You can put laughing faces, it won't make the loss or your lies any more in your favour. I am superior to you as a debater and you can't get over it.

"it is a war, a battle"

No, its not. You want it to be that way to delude yourself into thinking acting unethically in a debate is justified.

Also, highly convenient, "I wasn't saying that"

"You clearly were"

"Well I wasn't being serious"

Lol how convenient 😂😂

Lol @ you trying to be like, "I never said that" you didn't have to outright state it, it was clear thats what you were doing. Also, paraphrasing also uses quotations too. Like I said, that's some hella wit you got there 😂😂😂

Do you know what debating is? Do you think everything I state or ask is my real view? It is a war, a battle and I will do what I need to in order to bring as much doubt onto your side and confidence in my side.

Yes, I am because of this,

"So what Prop (The side of Proposition) is actually saying is shockingly that the legislation that was clearly approved by the Legislative branch and then enacted into Law instead of just a Bill by the President of the United States (POTUS) is having enough grounds to be overturned by SCOTUS..."

This is a clear questioning of Judicial Review itself. "the grounds" in relation to "legislation" "enacted into law" clearly illustrates, again, a questioning of Judicial Review. You don't need to outright say it for it to be exactly what you did

You are putting quotation marks but if you do ctrl or cmd + f and type 'what authority' it doesn't come up with any results in the entire debate.

Some impressive wits right there 🔥

Says the guy who asked, "what authority does SCOTUS have to overturn legislation passed into law?

Despite that being established in legislation for a little over 200 years, and further codified into an actual amendment to the Constitution that makes it the supreme law of the US, and the Supreme Court being the highest adjudicator in the court system by consequence the absolute authority on the constititionality of law and criminal charges 🤔

Cry more, you lost by annihilation due to my wits.

Honestly, take me my resscindence as you will, it is sure to be taken negatively and ascribed as being nefarious. When calling somebody out for being a dick, isnt nefarious, especially when that person has a slew of issues with loads of people in social interaction, yet never seems to look in the mirror regarding that. Its always everybody else being dicks, totally not ever you acting like a dick because you presume everyone to be an enemy

If you throw rocks back be warned I will break you in ways no other can or will.

Im just gonna rescind my offer to debate you period. Depsite being a good debater and a rigorous challenge, your perspective of others inherently precludes even being able to get a sense of enjoyment or entertainment from such a debate.

And honestly I would've preferred to respectfully decline, but your lack of respect towards me in acknowledgement of a willingness to act unethically and in Ill faith kinda erased me doing that. If you wanna sling shit at people, be warned that they might start throwing rocks back

Prop has said what I said is worthy of forfeit.

Never said that, if you want to keep attributing actions to people that arent there, allow me to actually elaborate more upon why I decided to forfeit.

Because to be frank, I don't feel like debating someone who has a victimhood complex and constantly tries to paint the other participant as nefarious despite zero evidence being present to attribute such nefariousness and I'll intent.

Furthermore, you want to paint my character negatively, then turn right around and imply you being "banned" was intentional and some sort of strategy to achieve victory. You do understand you just implied you cheated right? 😂😂

Like Jesus Christ dude, you have such a victimhood complex that demands you view everyone as nefarious and out to get you, all as a means to justify that you yourself are quite in fact being the dick in most situations unjustifiably.

As I said, the W obviously means more to you because you are willing to abandon ethics and good faith acting to achieve it. That doesnt mean your right when somebody notices that and goes, nah dude, just take the W, that means you were being a massive dick and acting like a chode.

FR, you need to get over yourself and your blatant narcissistic victim complex thats on full display here 😂. I'm not even angry, this has just been absurdly comedic the extent you've deluded yourself at this point 😂😂😂

If you want to debate something else, being that I just has my second debate accepted, I would reasonably ask we wait till I finish one of the two. Three debates at once, plus mafia series is a quite a bit on the plate and i dont wanna do something where I'm gonna be so swamped by things that the quality of all activities drops consequentially 🤔.

Like I said, W is yours for this debate, getting the W isnt of particular importance to me so its no skin off me bones 👏👏

"people underestimate me and call me tons of things, but one thing I am not is a mentally ill moron that Zeichen said i was"

simmer down man, I'm not Zeichen and I never said those things. Take a breather, realize you are attributing nefarious and Ill intent to that which was not nefarious or ill in intent.

You look at my R2 and go, "he didnt take my argument seriously because he underestimates me and thinks I'm crazy" no, I do not. If I thought as such we wouldn't have been debating to begin with. I would have respectfully declined and ceded the W.

After consideration, with that being said, have the W 👏. I'll just leave this debate to being done with Virtuoso as arguing the same topic twice simultaneously is just something that will melt my brain tbh and I consequentially won't be giving my full effort.

However, I'd gladly debate you on another ruling? 👌 Perhaps one that pertains to another realm of SCOTUS purview in jurisprudence? There are loads of landmark rulings to pick from 🔥🔥. Take your pick, or perhaps a crucial concept that underpins the rulings themselves. I made a thread about Citizens United v FEC in the forums, perhaps you are interested? 🤔

But I'm not going to agree to deleting this debate.

People underestimate and call me tons of things but one thing I am not is the mentally ill moron that Zeichen said I was.

It's your bad strategy and lack of effort that has landed you in this situation and I am not willing to let down this debate. If I lose so bet it but I am quite sure I'm going to win after my Round 3 step by step summary of how I successfully opposed the resolution and you didn't successfully uphold it.

I am willing to redo it, yes, and have saved both rounds to google docs as I'm aware this site doesn't cache or even save debate post-voting.

Did you want to restart this due to the whole getting banned midway thing? I obviously would have further detailed what my rebuttals specifically were had I not been under the impression you would return in time to submit a round in time. 😂.

Can Understand not wanting to sink time into creating another reply for R2 though. In fairness I'd be doing the same for R2 cause you got banned for whatever reason when I was mostly through typing it up 😂😂

Oh no, a little *spicy* 🙊🙊

I bring it up in round two, but I feel R1 addressed the two principle questions of the case posed by Justice Stone in the beginning of the unanimous opinion fairly well with the Originalist interpretation presented 🤔👏

I'll post the second round regardless. What'd you guys think of the first round? I had more of a construct, but wanted to leave that first part standalone as it was the primary component 🤔

Awwwwwwww, dang, and I was putting the final touches on the second round 😤

-->
@Buddamoose

Hey since con was banned challenge me to this debate

This is an excellent debate so far. PM me when this is over so I can vote.

-->
@Buddamoose

Congrats on your win.

If anyone has questions or desires clarifications of the case I presented, they are more than welcome. Such questions will be given their due regard and attention in subsequent rounds as voters in this debate are in effect taking on the role of a SCOTUS Justice, and therefore are entitled to ask any questions during the debate to either party they wish to have answered.

This decision was actually *9-0. West Cost Hotel v Parrish was 5-4, my b

-->
@Smithereens

Actually, for once I used a comp. I started realizing the sheer amount of citations I was going to need just for this part and was like, "ok, this is going to be entirely too annoying on a phone and I can't stay up that late" 😂😂

-->
@Buddamoose

did you type this out on a phone..?

If this weren't a debate on a SCOTUS ruling and say a circuit court ruling, those types of arguments would stock be rejected. In fact, any argument to overturn would be stock rejected too just by the principle of stare decisis. Hence why it's about a SCOTUS ruling, cause they are not as bound to that principle 🤔

You really have a major advantage with the principle of stare decisis(precedent) but SCOTUS is not bound so tightly to that principle as lower courts are, so beware on over-reliance on that 👌. As it stands I have the angle I'm gonna take with this case. Ive compiled the constitutionality argument, I'm currently compiling the utility portion.

And absolutely philosophical arguments are more than acceptable, but keep in mind as a debate on a SCOTUS ruling, arguments that use the Constitution, later legal rulings, etc. outweigh philosophical arguments that arent in line with the framework established by the US 👌. However, they can still be used, and if a compelling enough argument is made, it could still possibly be held to ve more compelling than one rooted in US law 🤔

In part GP, yes.

@Rational- yes, you are right, amending the amount does not constitute as overturning the ruling. Overturning the ruling would mean establishing a federal minimum wage as unconstitutional, as SCOTUS purview is in the constititionality of law. They do as stated, factor in harms and benefits of policy, so that kind of argumentation is more than welcome. If you want some quick arguments on legality just read the supplied case brief. The decision was 5-4 so there are compelling arguments on either side. And constitutional arguments will really remain the same. However, there is decades of evidence since then that could create some compelling new arguments on utility 🤔