Total votes: 5
Arguments were a tie. I don't think RM's point about no specific prohibition was quite addressed, but Mall had a lot of circumstantial evidence that was never addressed due to RM's forfeits. Mall's arguments weren't great, but RM dropped most of them and just repeated what he said earlier (which, to be fair, wasn't really countered either). Conduct breaks the tie in favor of Pro.
Pro forfeited Round 1, but conduct takes a back seat to argumentation in winner selection.
If the first round (or rounds) Pro responded to all of Con's arguments and had arguments of their own. They also had sources, which made their case a bit more convincing. Con just couldn't keep up, especially without fleshing their argument out a bit more. Pro had the last word, which really helped them because Con was adding arguments in the last round. Con made claims; Pro had evidence.
Full forfeit
Neither side provided any arguments.
1 round with no chance for Pro to respond to arguments against their case. Con responded to everything Pro said (not a difficult task) and had arguments of their own.