Total votes: 3
Arguments tied because neither side offered them. I would still like to see the side who did not forfeit make arguments in these debates, but I understand the opportunity cost of doing so.
Conduct points to RM for not forfeiting
Let me start this by talking about source points. I am not awarding them because debaters need to convince me why they deserve them, and nobody really has.
Conduct points here would also be silly. New arguments in the final round is not a conduct violation, it is just pointless because judges will disregard new arguments anyway. It only harms the debaters because it distracts them from framing the debate by giving an impact analysis that favors them.
I also wanted to point out something funny that happened to be in the debate as well. The beginning of round 2, pro claimed there was dropped arguments. It's the rebuttal round, con hadn't even got to rebuttals yet so he was incapable of dropping arguments at that point.
However there were arguments dropped. I'll get into that, because I am basically going to be weighing the impacts of dropped arguments for the most part.
The first argument pro makes is about a 300 study/article review of gaming's effect on education, showing improved scores for students. This really was dropped by con. Though the 3rd argument by pro on videogame workspaces (DNA argument) was disproven by con based on him pointing out it referred more to virtual spaces than on actual videogames.
I have to accept this evidence as true that the meta like study proved games beneficial to academic performance.
Con offered an argument that games made children overly focused on competition, but didn't really explain how this was a bad thing.
Con argued that it could prove cost prohibitive and put some schools at a disadvantage, and gave some very good reasons for why that would be the case. I found pro's rebuttal that the government would just pay for it, to be pointless. Like no shit. People pay taxes to the government and the government gives funding to schools. It doesn't change that some schools have better funding than others. However con fails to explain why no kids receiving this academic help is better than some schools receiving it.
Con's best argent doesn't receive a rebuttal. Con argued that students would become dependent on the games for learning and that they may stead away from the classes that don't have the games, and as pro's meta study pointed out, the games are useless for mostly stem related things.
I understand I left some things out of this analysis but I considered them. The final impacts are basically the costs and dependency that con mentions that don't have adequate rebuttals or the meta study pro mentions proving academic improvement that doesn't have a rebuttal.
I feel like the problem academic performance in some areas mixed with the fact that some students as opposed to none would benefit from pro's plan, makes me think the benefits outweigh the cons of putting video games in school, so I award arguments to pro.
RFD in comments