You Choose Topic & I Choose Side
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The Category is labeled "People," but the category can be anything
Mac McDonald and Dick McDonald were not greedy. They were cheated from a Capitalist ploy by a man named Ray Kroc.
The original McDonald’s founders were simple men of integrity, hard-work, and valued their customers…something that was lost in the noise as American corporations have made their push forward. Ray Kroc bought the rights to McDonald’s from them after buying up the land underneath their franchisee locations and using banks and franchisees to force a sale.
The founders of McDonald’s were woefully inept and allegedly used a handshake deal for 1% of the company’s profits that never came to be. That moment reminded me all too much of the crazy events of The Social Network.
One of the main arguments the creators of McDonald’s experienced with Ray Kroc was Kroc’s desire to use powdered milkshakes instead of real milkshakes. This troubled the founders who wanted to serve real products to their customers.
Skipper is right.Mac McDonald and Dick McDonald were not greedy.
I take the quote above as a concession.
NOTE: I am referring to Skipper as CON, and Lancelot as PRO.
So this debate pretty much all comes down to what counts as an "origin story."
If, as CON claims, it counts as only the original creation of something, then he easily wins, because the McDonald brothers clearly weren't greedy - they were just running a normal, reasonably high-quality restaurant.
If, as PRO claims, it also includes the popularization of something, then he definitely wins, because the buyer of the franchise was greedy and tried to buy the brothers out using unethical tactics.
I buy PRO's interpretation, simply because first, it makes sense. An origin story is basically an entire backstory, which includes how something became popular. Second, CON mostly fails to contest this, or give me a reason why I shouldn't accept this. As such, the framework is upheld, and so is the topic statement, giving PRO argument points. Conduct to CON for forfeiture.
This was a tough one, in part because Con and Pro are reversed. The debate was about "an origin story". Origin was never defined. Mcdonald's as we know it, versus how it was at the time, was never discussed. Both sides accept that the founders of Mcdonald's were not greedy. Con said "Ray Kroc exploited the original founders to take over the business. " Con never justified that the Ray Kroc actions constitute "an origin story". The question is, on its face, does it? I would say no. Based on the common use of the word origin. Whilst Ray Kroc did create the chains of what we know today, it was built on the foundation of others, and that would be the origin. Source/Spelling tie. Conduct Pro for the forfeit.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Con was able to show that McDonalds as we know it has an origin story of greed. Pro did little to push back on this, mistaking cons words for a concession.
Exactly what constitutes an origin story is ambiguous. It leaves key events in the distant past as fair game unless there’s a significant reason to rule when the origin must cease.
Ty!
Done.
If either of you have any questions/objections to my vote, just let me know.
Could you vote on this debate?
Pretty short to read through. Might only take 1-2 minutes.
Semantics are like grilled scallions. I hate them. Lol
Thank you sir!
"McDonald's has an origin story of greed."
Dang. I immediately thought of arguments for both sides. This will be a tough choice
Do you agree to the addition of a fifth round? Round 1 will have to be waived for both us since I need to wait for your Topic Decision, and I need to choose my side