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 😂😂
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 🤔
Interesting opening rounds. If I may suggest as someone who plans in voting on this. If the Instigator could structure his arguments more formally, and go into specific detail as to the claimed benefits of autism via psychological, genetic, and neurological studies.
Thank you and I hope my request is taken into consideration, even though the Instigator need not heed it.
If you want ill send you the construct I have for that UBC debate. I feel I constructed a solid AF case 🤔, def want some independent perspective on that
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.
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" 😂😂
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 🤔
@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 🤔
Its gonna be a day or so, I posted it pre compiling the case itself. Have the general scope of what I'll construct, just need to sit down and write it out. And legal arguments take a lil bit to compile xD
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 😂😂
Nope, ayeeee, ur back 🙃
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 😤
Interesting opening rounds. If I may suggest as someone who plans in voting on this. If the Instigator could structure his arguments more formally, and go into specific detail as to the claimed benefits of autism via psychological, genetic, and neurological studies.
Thank you and I hope my request is taken into consideration, even though the Instigator need not heed it.
If you want ill send you the construct I have for that UBC debate. I feel I constructed a solid AF case 🤔, def want some independent perspective on that
This should be an excellent debate. Two talented debaters going at it. Im looking forward to reading this! 👏
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
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" 😂😂
This looks like its gonna be a very interesting debate
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 🤔
Its gonna be a day or so, I posted it pre compiling the case itself. Have the general scope of what I'll construct, just need to sit down and write it out. And legal arguments take a lil bit to compile xD
Oh shit, what's up rational?! Long time no see