Fruit_Inspector

Arguments:
The resolution of the debate places PRO in the position of having to present a convincing argument that lawmakers should change the current laws to include more video games in the K-12 curriculum. I do not believe PRO fulfilled this burden. PRO's sources really ended up working against him as I will detail in the sources point. Nearly every source from both sides agreed that there may be benefits to video games, but results are conflicted due to variables and lack of empirical data. Thus, I believe the following points placed the debate in CON's favor:

Difference Between "Virtual Workspace" and "Video Games" - Though CON could have hit this point harder, he did point out in Round 2 that video games are not the same as, nor are they necessary to create, virtual workspaces. PRO tries to rebut this in Round 3 by quoting from the "Practicality in Virtuality" study. While the study is inaccessible, the abstract clearly states, "When considered conceptually, the notion of virtual experience is not limited to those experiences generated by computer aided technology, as with a video game or computer simulation." PRO's source agrees with CON's point that video games, which are what the resolution is specifically about, are not necessary for any benefit gained from virtual workspaces.

Price - I think this is another point CON could have hit harder, but PRO did nearly nothing to counter it. PRO argued in Round 2, "the money is out of the government, not out of the school." While schools are funded by the government, they each operate on an individual budget. As CON stated in Round 1, "Not all schools could afford those, and if we specifically put fundings out for it, it would be a waste of money". Since CON distinguishes between the higher cost of video games specifically and the lower cost of other virtual workspaces, the cost factor works in CON's favor.

Conclusion - As stated, PRO's sources really worked against him by not supporting his argument and even contradicting it at times. I do not believe he made a meaningful case that lawmakers should be compelled to make changes to the curriculum to include more video games. I also believe CON's argument that there is a distinction between virtual workspaces and video games, as well as the cost factor involved, adequately show that video games are not a necessary change and can be freely adopted if schools wish to do so.

Sources:
I gave this point to CON because his sources were all accessible and were related to his arguments. However, PRO's sources were not used well. In Round 1, only one source was accessible without a paid subscription of some sort. While this does not necessarily eliminate a source's validity in my mind, we also did not receive any type of analysis other than basically taking a single sentence from the abstract and making an argument of it. This leads me to believe that PRO also did not actually read anything from his sources other than the abstracts, because even these summaries did not support his argument.

-Source 1's abstract stated, "Many educationally interesting games exist, yet evidence for their impact on student achievement is slim." This hurts PRO's case that video games have been proven to be beneficial. The abstract also made a distinction between video games and simulations, which hurts PRO's Round 3 rebuttal.
-Source 2's abstract also states that virtual experience is not limited to video games but can apply to the traditional classroom experience, which again hurts PRO's case in Round 3. Source 2's abstract also did not make any indication as to whether the virtual experience was actually beneficial or not, nor was I able to draw that conclusion without access to the study.
-Source 3 is accessible, but the parameters clearly state that it only applies to participants 18 years or older. This debate is about K-12, making this source irrelevant to nearly all of the K-12 population.
-Source 4 was inaccessible, but did not end up being relevant since CON did not make this argument. I placed no weight on this source.
-In Round 2, PRO's source also helped CON's argument that virtual workspaces can be made without video games (quote from source: "Compared to complex and costly educational games, using gaming elements and mechanics in non‐game environments for a light gamification design can easily provide students with a gaming experience that is highly portable and reduces technical threshold for teachers and students.")

For these reasons, I award the point to CON for better use of sources.

Spelling and Grammar:
No significant issues from either side.

Conduct:
No issues from either side.

Con forfeits. Capitalism FTW.