Should schools ban phones for students entirely during the day?

Yes, other sites do have that specific result of forfeited debate rounds, but DART has a different perspective that few bother to read or analyze. Often, if a participant forfeits all rounds, it may be an automatic loss, but not if the other participant makes a poor effort, themselves. I've encountered a few of those, and, rather than try to determine a winner, I choose not to vote. Simple, doesn't reward anyone for a poor effort. DART rules speak to a 66% min level of forfeiture of rounds to "earn" a discounted point, but the consequence is NOT automatic loss, but only loss of a conduct point, and that only in multiple-dimensional voting segments: argument / sourcing / legibility / conduct, with multiple points potentially offered to both participants. This debate is not that type of designated voting system. It is just win/lose; one point for the winner; 0 point for the loser by each vote. You might want to request to re-vote - must ask a mod. Up to you.

In most formal debate settings and other debate sites, forfeiture of over 50% of a debate results in an instant loss.,

Can we redo the debate?

Says who?
You just randomly made a rule saying that if someone doesn't participate in the first 2 round that they lose the debate.

It doesn't matter the intent or circumstances behind forfeiture. It's just the way it works. Sorry 🤷

Just start another debate. Its probably too late for this one now.

but how is it my fault at all? I didnt have my device so i was forced too forfeit. How is it fair too me that you vote forfiet.

He did exactly what he was supposed to. It's the job of negative to refute what Pro says. Pro said nothing, and so Con let you have the first argument, while still not forfeiting anything. His conduct was perfect. Even though you had the same amount of arguments, Con wins by default according to standard debate rules. Sorry if that upsets you, but that's just how it works.

The 2 rounds i didnt participate in he didnt either he simply said

"I yield. Pro is the affirmative."

All im saying is me and my opponet debated the same round, we both didnt make an agrueement for the first 2 rounds. so its not fair for you too vote due to forfeiting when HE never debated the first 2 round either.

I understand your point, but in most debate formats, forfeiting a significant portion of the rounds—like two out of three—typically results in a default loss. The reasoning is that debates are meant to be an exchange of arguments, and if one side isn't participating for the majority of the rounds, it’s considered a lack of engagement. Even if your opponent didn't argue much, they at least showed up for the rounds, which, by standard rules, counts as participation. In this case, forfeiting 66% of the debate essentially concedes the match by default.

How is that fair to say that I lose due to the fact that I forfeited but my opponent did not debate either we both did the same amount it's not fair to me and too the debate that you vote based on forfieting when I and my opponet did not debate the same rounds.

Just wait till time runs out. There is no other way to forfeit round. Or if Mall agrees, you can have debate deleted instead. Maybe thats the best way. But as it is now, round can either be posted either wait till time runs out. But you can post completely empty round by typing space instead of letters here. Or just write "i forfeit" in round and post it.

Is there a way i could forfiet

Sorry i was busy with another debate!!

I really wonder how will Mall argue this. Its a difficult debate for Con, but there is actually one flaw in the topic which can be used to argue opposite. I want to see if Mall will use argument I have in mind.

What is this debate about? What is your stance? Are you in favor or against?

Okay

"Should" in this debate means whether it is the right, appropriate, or best decision for schools to make. It's asking if banning phones during the school day is a good idea, considering the consequences, benefits, and values in it.

I mean, whats the definition of "should" here? If its "improves health" or "reduces distractions", then its not really possible to argue against.