is it legal for Winn Dixie to tell Dollar Tree not to sell food because they own the building?
Debate Rounds (3)
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   , my side of the debate is fulfilled. All my sources show that the restrictions were not explicitly said to be illegal.
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.
j4justice5 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.