Total votes: 2
Explained in comments.
This was not a debate but a massacre.
Pro's argument whole seems to boil down to "People have a right to create bubbles of association where nothing they dislike is let in." He considers this interest to be more compelling than the general interest of people in having uniform opportunity and access to things which are taken for granted in the 21st century.
In Round 4, he laments that if public spaces are desegregated then segregationists who are forced to shop in these integrated establishments for lack of alternative will be denied said right to create bubbles of association. And yet, in his hand is the solution to his own problem: segregationists, in order to uphold their right, can simply deny themselves access and opportunities in the same way previously experienced by the outgroup (here, 20th century blacks). If, after all, it was no excessive burden to living for 20th century blacks then it could've been no excessive burden to living for pro-segregation 20th century whites either.
So then, if the practical consequences of segregation for blacks did not pose an ethical dilemma grave enough to outweigh the perceived interest of segregationists, then effectively the same consequence applied to segregationists could not have posed an ethical dilemma grave enough to outweigh the very real and tangible interest of blacks.
Ultimately, Con takes down Pro by citing definitions which show freedom of association to be not only freedom FROM but also freedom TO. This, combined with the mountain of evidence that Con brought to the table, is enough to make this vote easy peasy.