The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

is it legal for Winn Dixie to tell Dollar Tree not to sell food because they own the building?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 67719
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




It is so wrong that Winn Dixie feels that because they own the building that Dollar Tree cannot have food items because they sell food items. I don't believe that this is legal. I feel that they are acting as bad as Fidel Castro and/or Hitler.


I would like to clarify the case that Con is speaking about in general. From what I understand, it is Winn-Dixie v. Dolgencorp. I will formulate my argument assuming this is the case.

Con's stance: It is not legal for Winn-Dixe to tell Dollar Tree not to sell food.
My stance: It is legal for Winn-Dixie to tell Dollar Tree not to sell food.

Assuming the BoP is shared, this is all I have to prove. Seeing as the Winn-Dixie's actions have not been deemed illegal [1] [2] [3], my side of the debate is fulfilled. All my sources show that the restrictions were not explicitly said to be illegal.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1


No, that was not the case. Winn Dixie owns the property but its multiple buildings on two different sides of the street. Dollar Tree has been selling food there for years. Winn Dixie knew that when they had rented the property to them. If that in any way violated their contract with winn-dixie they should have never rented to them to begin with.


I have not stated my opinion on the case. All that I stated in Round 1 is that their actions were not illegal. If their actions against Dolgencorp were not illegal, then clearly I have won this debate, seeing as the topic of this debate is "is it legal for Winn Dixie to tell Dollar Tree not to sell food because they own the building?" Con's argument, then, is that Winn-Dixie's actions are not legal; my argument is that they are legal. Winn-Dixie did nothing illegal, so my side of this debate has been proven and cannot be challenged.
Debate Round No. 2


j4justice5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to present a reason as to why it was illegal, and instead appealed to emotion and I think morals? Not sure. Pro, on the other hand, presented evidence showing that there actions were not illegal. Due to this evidence and failure on Con's part to provide proper rebuttals, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Pro did. This is a clear win for Pro.