You Choose Topic & I Choose Side

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.