hey, is this conduct point allowed? Seems a little absurd. I don't think Pro meant that con actually conceded, but that he basically dropped arguments (which I wouldn't vote conduct either way)
Roy Latham says: "I was away for most of the day today and just got to look at the debate. It's interesting. I spent most of my career in training simulation, so my prejudice is in favor of "games" since any realistic simulation can be viewed as a game in which accomplishing the task is winning.
I think Pro had the better of the debate, with the advantage in better references supporting his arguments.
Saying that games are not necessary is not a good argument. Books, computers, videos, schools, and professional teachers are not necessary for learning. Up to age five, children learn a lot without any of those things. The issue is whether students learn more or learn more quickly with games than without. Since, I gather, games are not used very much in current education, it's only necessary to show that there are at least a few examples where learning is enhanced to show more use should be made of them. One example is learning involving drills: simple math problems used to advance in game; written conversation in foreign languages in various situations; spelling and grammar exercises. Games provide rewards for learning through advancement in the game.
Con argues that individual games detract from reading skills and learning team play. those arguments depend upon a certain idea of how games are constructed. Before computer graphics became standard, role-playing games were done entirely by writing. Multi-player games are now common, so the adaptation to project skills is straightforward. Using computers has the advantage that the players need not all be together; they might be in different schools or in different countries. The argument is only that some parts of education are enhanced, not that every part of education must be subsumed.
Con's argument that special equipment is required is not a strong one, because games can be done on computers and that's pretty standard these days.
I'll mention an argument not used in the debate. Simulations are used whenever training in the real world is too expensive, too hard to set up, or too dangerous. For high schools, such situations might occur for running machine tools, driving or repairing cars, or maybe some things related to music.
I thought Pro did well in presenting the case. He could have been more concise; it's a little wordy."
So if you're curious if you truly won or not, even arguments alone, it's not 100% clear. The experienced debater here with age advantage seems to agree with the majority points' decisions.
congratulations guys, you got the most votes on DART out of any debate where:
- the debaters did not forfeit or concede any rounds
- the debaters were both of serious caliber
- voters voted both ways
well done. I may nominate this for Hall of Fame, despite its shortness. Surprised that Trent0405 never caught this much attention (his debate against RM had more votes, but RM gave up that one)
you know what's funny? Tallying up the votes, we see that 5 people believe con won arguments, while only 3 people believe that Pro wins arguments. Under the non-7 point system where only arguments matters and not source nor conduct, Pro wouldn't even be saved by BringerofRain's vote. It's funny how different winner selection is. Unless I could get Roy's opinion and non-biasedly vote pro as well as Bringer, we'd still only have tied debate overall.
he's got a point. If Mr. Chris truly believed that Con deserved to win, he could laugh at pro and use same reasoning as Fauxlaw + Fruit inspector, and then maybe even heap upon source points for similar reasons that Pro's ideas didn't address potential harms (only list benefits). The only reason he would "give the illusion of tying the debate" would be to prove that he is unbiased. But he has already has many other votes that proves he's not biased. Whiteflame's vote for pro is under his acceptance of the framework -- since he values impacts and benefits rather than something as vague as "unique benefits" (for necessary implementation). As such, both voting for pro and voting for con is acceptable, but Con's big flaw is that he didn't push forward exactly what harms there are, forcing Whiteflame to look at Pro's sheer impact with studies. That's the kind of person Whiteflame is.
but... but Con also never showed how big the costs were. That's why Whiteflame + RM judged the argument to become a big fat zero. There's a clear benefit, but it's unclear how big the harms compare to it.
I'm going to try to get Roy to get his opinion. Though he probably can't vote on time (100 forum posts oof), I hope moderators will accept I vote in his place (if he makes a decision on Facebook). That way I minimize my personal bias for pro.
Nice analysis, though... didn’t pro point out there is unlimited possibilities to video games in r1? (DNA lab can make things easier than irl) The virtual experience separation does slightly blur the line, but you don’t seem to have the same issue as fruit inspector with regards to this
I think the question is if you accept con’s “is pro benefits unique?” Or if pro’s “con did not show harms”... very tricky argument wise. Still, source points are up in the air.
calling in all last day potential voters. I'm not sure who's winning here, but I'm certain that Fauxlaw's vote is not 100% justified. More votes please!
you gave source to con saying: " Pro fails to provide a source to support the argument that video games in a K-12 educational nevironment are necessary by enforcement of law, which is a key factor in Pro's argument, needing scholastic justitification. The argument alone, offered by Pro, does not stand up to Con's R1 sourced rebuttal argument that if a law is required to enforce video game use, it looses its own standing as being "fun" without being a mandatory curriculum feature. Further, while Pro's sources explain the benefits of a video game curricula, Con's rebuttal sourcing demonstrates there is no convincing loss of educational mastery if video games are lacking in the curriculum, because students have availability of video games on their own time. Points to Con."
But con also gave no source that the video games would cost severe amounts of money, particularly in that it would be detrimental to poor schools, or detrimental to the government. So why does source points go to con?
no problem. I may go into more detail as my brain is mush right now, but under 20% brain (mind?) capacity I think your succinctness wins over Benjamin's logic. His argument isn't bad, but it's a little muddy with materialism vs metaphysical separation.
The source does admit that there is no significant difference, hence Con could've made the point that there was no unique benefit, and maybe even wasted money. But he never brought that point, and therefore the idea that the "meaningful experiences apply for both classrooms and video games" makes video games seem at least on par with other learning resources. Pro only had to prove it was equally worth investing as with normal classroom material, in my opinion.
even though his source was limited, it didn't explicitly contradict in the form. Unless Con pointed this out or showed why children won't enjoy adult's games, I don't think pro can be penalized for the source point. Remember how I said that Australia's gun control policy is excellent, but pointed out it was an outlier that didn't detract from my gun control argument? Even if I had not mentioned Australia at all, if a source admits that some countries have good gun control policies, but mostly focuses on gun control's flaws, then I think it would still support my ideas.
Whiteflame himself nearly gave conduct point to pro, saying " It also really doesn't help when Con decides to throw out two new arguments in his final round, including the Project-Based Learning alternative and reducing social skills. Setting aside that the alternative isn't mutually exclusive, presenting brand new arguments like this in the final round makes me seriously consider giving Pro a conduct point, though I end up just dismissing all those points instead, largely because I don't like giving this point out unless the problems are egregious."
also, welcome to the site! Whoever you are, you're very good at analyzing arguments and debating. I think in a proper debate even the top debaters would struggle to debate someone of your caliber.
even though the article doesn't mention explicitly if it's college students or K-12, it's still debatable if the arguments are non-unique/unique to adults...
"Video games have always been popular with adolescents and young adults, and recent technologies such as the Nintendo Wii and the Microsoft Xbox Kinect have opened the market for those of all ages to use and enjoy video games. Despite the down-turn in the country’s economy, consumer video game expenditures now account for one-third of monthly entertainment spending with the trend continuing to rise (The NPD Group 2009). Despite the prominence and popularity of video games and the potential of video games to support substantive learning, these media forms have not been successfully integrated in classrooms, and science classrooms more specifically, on a broad scale. In the sections below, we review possible explanations for this trend including two arguments that have been articulated elsewhere and a third related to the question of the nature of learning in classrooms that are increasingly becoming virtualized. We will then look deeper into the issues of virtualization and what they mean for both video game learning and educational practice."
to be fair, I'm mostly posing a problematic vote because I think this debate is a tie due to unclear information and contested ideas, but the source point not 100% justified by Fruit. Moderators can remove it in time and vote to make a decision, but the time pressure of three days makes it difficult to know for sure. It's a little bit of a cop out, but I hesitate to let Undefeatable lose since Whiteflame is a renowned voter on DDO who has never selected the loser when he was chosen as Judge. Hence I am drawing more attention and sacrificing personal credibility in order to prevent another potential Imminent Downfall debate.
probably need more skilled voters to decide on this one. Seems difficult since Con didn't point out problems with sources, despite them being present... (I myself have problem deciding, so abstain for now)
Pro's R2 source admits that some gaming can be costly, and thus gamification is also an alternative solution, but didn't you read the passage above it?
"When providing a personalized learning experience for students, considering the budget and versatility of the game, the adaptive game system is the direction that scholars are actively exploring. For example, some researchers have developed adaptive educational games based on learning style or player performance, which can dynamically and continuously adjust learning content according to students' interaction with the game. The adaptive educational games can effectively enable students to maximize understanding and mastering of knowledge content and reduce the cognitive load of students (Clark et al., 2016; Soflano, Connolly, & Hainey, 2015). Torrente, Freire, Moreno‐Ger, and Fernández‐Manjón (2015) focused on special groups and developed a (semi) adaptive educational game “My First Day at Work” based on the player community. The game configures the user interface through the initial role selection, including the blind character, the wheelchair character, the hearing impaired character, and the fourth character without obvious disability. For example, the scene adapted to the low vision crowd uses a high contrast rendering mode to darken the background and highlight interactive elements."
Hence, different adaptive measures can flexibly incorporate gaming or similar to video game ideas. The fact that Con didn't differentiate between non-video game "gamification" and Pro's video game stance means you can't exactly incorporate this idea in my opinion.
what do you think about Fruit's reading of the sources? It does seem Pro half stabbed himself in the foot, but Con never pointed out the inaccuracies. Do you think it's reasonable for voters to read into if the sources have contradictory claims?
also... why do you trust the bible more than scientific experiments? Can you sufficiently reproduce the miracles supposedly performed? Can you actually verify the veracity of the person's statement and the history, like Undefeatable claimed he could prove beyond the LEGAL requirement, as if earth being older than 10,000 was a pedophilia/murder case?
was there any way to win? I just feel like accepting of fiction was true, but didn't make it illogical or impractical to oppose a nonexistent gun ban or flat earth.
Aww what, I wanted to show the nonexistent ideas being refuted had the same value as existing ideas. By this logic you shouldn’t say true things that are a waste of time since a parent saying “please tie your shoe” is equivalent to “I love you”, so you should say the latter anyways
to be fair, he's always followed his philosophy. He never forfeits, he always has at least 2~3 arguments, and he usually uses like a dozen sources to support his ideas.
oh, I agree. Chidi was absolutely ridiculous in his inaction, and Eleanor was just mean while Jason wasted his life away. At least Tahani was good in terms of utilitarian outcomes.
I understand what you're thinking. Informed Consent seems big on the theoretical idea especially since Pro admitted that freedom was as important as life. But he stressed how we gain that specific decision, despite lack of information. You say we can never give enough information, and Pro countered that if this is the case, then it would be likely they would go in donating for free without information, which means more compensation is better. You added upon money's "unique coercion" factor, but Pro asks a few reducto ad absurdum arguments that put a lot of doubt in your case: "is Con going to somehow shut down all the jobs with financial gain and also containing a certain amount of danger? So Con wants people never to do anything where they can die or suffer great harm?" He accused you that your plan has the same logic as punishing people for suicide (purposefully putting themselves in danger when they can't think clearly, for their personal gains), and you didn't counter his fallacious arguments. I know they're flawed, but you didn't tell me why they're different from Pro's portrayal of "Gov gets to decide".
Pro separated your financial coercion and your informed consent -- I feel like they only work when combined together. In round 4 you basically gave up on economic coercion and instead stacked upon the idea of family coercion. That makes me feel the financial devil + no information is much weaker. I can understand how your argument works, but he sneakily unlinked your arguments with two separate worlds, which obviously doesn't make sense considering your case, but your linking only felt like there was some non-unique coercion with pro's case.
here's my personal thoughts, after reading it twice: Con's informed consent argument works very well combined with the idea that the regulation would still cause exploitation (though Pro seemed to desire to compare it to the status quo -- which completely illegalizes markets, so it's still freer). Pro has a lot of good impact negation because he highlighted that only those who wanted to donate, would be at risk. Then he noted your studies barely had any deaths or long term injuries, which you sadly mostly dropped at the end. The case still stands pretty strong if voters accept your framework, but it's hard to see why it defeats utilitarian/libertarianism. Pro didn't stretch it too far, and his framework put the market as a "win win" situation that seemed reasonable for the government. He kept trying to reason that "disability insurance" is even worse of a motivator than "$75,000" in terms of coercion. And I can't accept family because he states that honor pressuring will still exist in the no-compensation world, resulting in unsolved problems. In the end, if I had to vote it's extremely muddy in my opinion. Because you kind of gave up on the actual impacts, as ironic as that is, considering your voting is king of impacts. You didn't bother tackling how low the deaths were, which significantly weakens your case. And while Pro didn't outright say "we prevent people from getting another well deserved job", his question framed it in a way that infers "Con must somehow also prevent workers from going to hazardous construction sites". This is probably a tie for me.
hey, is this conduct point allowed? Seems a little absurd. I don't think Pro meant that con actually conceded, but that he basically dropped arguments (which I wouldn't vote conduct either way)
Roy Latham says: "I was away for most of the day today and just got to look at the debate. It's interesting. I spent most of my career in training simulation, so my prejudice is in favor of "games" since any realistic simulation can be viewed as a game in which accomplishing the task is winning.
I think Pro had the better of the debate, with the advantage in better references supporting his arguments.
Saying that games are not necessary is not a good argument. Books, computers, videos, schools, and professional teachers are not necessary for learning. Up to age five, children learn a lot without any of those things. The issue is whether students learn more or learn more quickly with games than without. Since, I gather, games are not used very much in current education, it's only necessary to show that there are at least a few examples where learning is enhanced to show more use should be made of them. One example is learning involving drills: simple math problems used to advance in game; written conversation in foreign languages in various situations; spelling and grammar exercises. Games provide rewards for learning through advancement in the game.
Con argues that individual games detract from reading skills and learning team play. those arguments depend upon a certain idea of how games are constructed. Before computer graphics became standard, role-playing games were done entirely by writing. Multi-player games are now common, so the adaptation to project skills is straightforward. Using computers has the advantage that the players need not all be together; they might be in different schools or in different countries. The argument is only that some parts of education are enhanced, not that every part of education must be subsumed.
Con's argument that special equipment is required is not a strong one, because games can be done on computers and that's pretty standard these days.
I'll mention an argument not used in the debate. Simulations are used whenever training in the real world is too expensive, too hard to set up, or too dangerous. For high schools, such situations might occur for running machine tools, driving or repairing cars, or maybe some things related to music.
I thought Pro did well in presenting the case. He could have been more concise; it's a little wordy."
So if you're curious if you truly won or not, even arguments alone, it's not 100% clear. The experienced debater here with age advantage seems to agree with the majority points' decisions.
Bump
Lol... salty? It’s basically whiteflame’s vote, but with less words
congratulations guys, you got the most votes on DART out of any debate where:
- the debaters did not forfeit or concede any rounds
- the debaters were both of serious caliber
- voters voted both ways
well done. I may nominate this for Hall of Fame, despite its shortness. Surprised that Trent0405 never caught this much attention (his debate against RM had more votes, but RM gave up that one)
you know what's funny? Tallying up the votes, we see that 5 people believe con won arguments, while only 3 people believe that Pro wins arguments. Under the non-7 point system where only arguments matters and not source nor conduct, Pro wouldn't even be saved by BringerofRain's vote. It's funny how different winner selection is. Unless I could get Roy's opinion and non-biasedly vote pro as well as Bringer, we'd still only have tied debate overall.
he's got a point. If Mr. Chris truly believed that Con deserved to win, he could laugh at pro and use same reasoning as Fauxlaw + Fruit inspector, and then maybe even heap upon source points for similar reasons that Pro's ideas didn't address potential harms (only list benefits). The only reason he would "give the illusion of tying the debate" would be to prove that he is unbiased. But he has already has many other votes that proves he's not biased. Whiteflame's vote for pro is under his acceptance of the framework -- since he values impacts and benefits rather than something as vague as "unique benefits" (for necessary implementation). As such, both voting for pro and voting for con is acceptable, but Con's big flaw is that he didn't push forward exactly what harms there are, forcing Whiteflame to look at Pro's sheer impact with studies. That's the kind of person Whiteflame is.
any chance the MASTER OF 3,000 character arguments can give his stance on how the arguers did?
when are you planning to vote? I may be sleeping in 4~5 hours ...
what a debate!
I think Ragnar is too busy to make a proper decision, and Blamonkey is non-existent. It's all up to Bringerofrain now...
(unless you can also justify conduct point lol)
other way around. Mr chris voted conduct for pro because of con's new arguments
but... but Con also never showed how big the costs were. That's why Whiteflame + RM judged the argument to become a big fat zero. There's a clear benefit, but it's unclear how big the harms compare to it.
I'm going to try to get Roy to get his opinion. Though he probably can't vote on time (100 forum posts oof), I hope moderators will accept I vote in his place (if he makes a decision on Facebook). That way I minimize my personal bias for pro.
Nice analysis, though... didn’t pro point out there is unlimited possibilities to video games in r1? (DNA lab can make things easier than irl) The virtual experience separation does slightly blur the line, but you don’t seem to have the same issue as fruit inspector with regards to this
I think the question is if you accept con’s “is pro benefits unique?” Or if pro’s “con did not show harms”... very tricky argument wise. Still, source points are up in the air.
any of you guys up to the challenge in such short notice?
calling in all last day potential voters. I'm not sure who's winning here, but I'm certain that Fauxlaw's vote is not 100% justified. More votes please!
you gave source to con saying: " Pro fails to provide a source to support the argument that video games in a K-12 educational nevironment are necessary by enforcement of law, which is a key factor in Pro's argument, needing scholastic justitification. The argument alone, offered by Pro, does not stand up to Con's R1 sourced rebuttal argument that if a law is required to enforce video game use, it looses its own standing as being "fun" without being a mandatory curriculum feature. Further, while Pro's sources explain the benefits of a video game curricula, Con's rebuttal sourcing demonstrates there is no convincing loss of educational mastery if video games are lacking in the curriculum, because students have availability of video games on their own time. Points to Con."
But con also gave no source that the video games would cost severe amounts of money, particularly in that it would be detrimental to poor schools, or detrimental to the government. So why does source points go to con?
no problem. I may go into more detail as my brain is mush right now, but under 20% brain (mind?) capacity I think your succinctness wins over Benjamin's logic. His argument isn't bad, but it's a little muddy with materialism vs metaphysical separation.
The source does admit that there is no significant difference, hence Con could've made the point that there was no unique benefit, and maybe even wasted money. But he never brought that point, and therefore the idea that the "meaningful experiences apply for both classrooms and video games" makes video games seem at least on par with other learning resources. Pro only had to prove it was equally worth investing as with normal classroom material, in my opinion.
even though his source was limited, it didn't explicitly contradict in the form. Unless Con pointed this out or showed why children won't enjoy adult's games, I don't think pro can be penalized for the source point. Remember how I said that Australia's gun control policy is excellent, but pointed out it was an outlier that didn't detract from my gun control argument? Even if I had not mentioned Australia at all, if a source admits that some countries have good gun control policies, but mostly focuses on gun control's flaws, then I think it would still support my ideas.
Whiteflame himself nearly gave conduct point to pro, saying " It also really doesn't help when Con decides to throw out two new arguments in his final round, including the Project-Based Learning alternative and reducing social skills. Setting aside that the alternative isn't mutually exclusive, presenting brand new arguments like this in the final round makes me seriously consider giving Pro a conduct point, though I end up just dismissing all those points instead, largely because I don't like giving this point out unless the problems are egregious."
I think penalizing intelligence for conduct is difficult, but I think your sauce and argument points are solid. Try revoting.
also, welcome to the site! Whoever you are, you're very good at analyzing arguments and debating. I think in a proper debate even the top debaters would struggle to debate someone of your caliber.
yeah, his vote looked very confusing to me. And then he switched back to normal for the end. He seems to want to vote for Undefeatable though.
even though the article doesn't mention explicitly if it's college students or K-12, it's still debatable if the arguments are non-unique/unique to adults...
"Video games have always been popular with adolescents and young adults, and recent technologies such as the Nintendo Wii and the Microsoft Xbox Kinect have opened the market for those of all ages to use and enjoy video games. Despite the down-turn in the country’s economy, consumer video game expenditures now account for one-third of monthly entertainment spending with the trend continuing to rise (The NPD Group 2009). Despite the prominence and popularity of video games and the potential of video games to support substantive learning, these media forms have not been successfully integrated in classrooms, and science classrooms more specifically, on a broad scale. In the sections below, we review possible explanations for this trend including two arguments that have been articulated elsewhere and a third related to the question of the nature of learning in classrooms that are increasingly becoming virtualized. We will then look deeper into the issues of virtualization and what they mean for both video game learning and educational practice."
to be fair, I'm mostly posing a problematic vote because I think this debate is a tie due to unclear information and contested ideas, but the source point not 100% justified by Fruit. Moderators can remove it in time and vote to make a decision, but the time pressure of three days makes it difficult to know for sure. It's a little bit of a cop out, but I hesitate to let Undefeatable lose since Whiteflame is a renowned voter on DDO who has never selected the loser when he was chosen as Judge. Hence I am drawing more attention and sacrificing personal credibility in order to prevent another potential Imminent Downfall debate.
probably need more skilled voters to decide on this one. Seems difficult since Con didn't point out problems with sources, despite them being present... (I myself have problem deciding, so abstain for now)
you might like this one, with Undefeatable's LGBT Disney debate
Pro's R2 source admits that some gaming can be costly, and thus gamification is also an alternative solution, but didn't you read the passage above it?
"When providing a personalized learning experience for students, considering the budget and versatility of the game, the adaptive game system is the direction that scholars are actively exploring. For example, some researchers have developed adaptive educational games based on learning style or player performance, which can dynamically and continuously adjust learning content according to students' interaction with the game. The adaptive educational games can effectively enable students to maximize understanding and mastering of knowledge content and reduce the cognitive load of students (Clark et al., 2016; Soflano, Connolly, & Hainey, 2015). Torrente, Freire, Moreno‐Ger, and Fernández‐Manjón (2015) focused on special groups and developed a (semi) adaptive educational game “My First Day at Work” based on the player community. The game configures the user interface through the initial role selection, including the blind character, the wheelchair character, the hearing impaired character, and the fourth character without obvious disability. For example, the scene adapted to the low vision crowd uses a high contrast rendering mode to darken the background and highlight interactive elements."
Hence, different adaptive measures can flexibly incorporate gaming or similar to video game ideas. The fact that Con didn't differentiate between non-video game "gamification" and Pro's video game stance means you can't exactly incorporate this idea in my opinion.
what do you think about Fruit's reading of the sources? It does seem Pro half stabbed himself in the foot, but Con never pointed out the inaccuracies. Do you think it's reasonable for voters to read into if the sources have contradictory claims?
I’m too busy to vote but on glance I think you missed out on what pro said. I agree with whiteflame’s decision
come one come all
sauce: https://who13.com/news/local-pediatrician-says-fortnite-is-causing-kids-sleeping-problems/amp/
I'm not the instigator, you'll have to ask him.
Welcome to the site! Though... unless you’re dedicated you probably chose the wrong opponent lol
Here you go.
I can't access the link
also... why do you trust the bible more than scientific experiments? Can you sufficiently reproduce the miracles supposedly performed? Can you actually verify the veracity of the person's statement and the history, like Undefeatable claimed he could prove beyond the LEGAL requirement, as if earth being older than 10,000 was a pedophilia/murder case?
The bible tells nothing about the age of earth. https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~bodla101/religion/ageoftheworld.html
you just directly contradicted yourself. You arbitrarily picked out earth created in six days as literal and a ton of other stuff as figurative.
"No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document."
And also... mere *bias* to negate geologists? I haven't seen another topic where 97% of experts are slanted towards the wrong way.
was there any way to win? I just feel like accepting of fiction was true, but didn't make it illogical or impractical to oppose a nonexistent gun ban or flat earth.
Aww what, I wanted to show the nonexistent ideas being refuted had the same value as existing ideas. By this logic you shouldn’t say true things that are a waste of time since a parent saying “please tie your shoe” is equivalent to “I love you”, so you should say the latter anyways
only one day left! gahh!
to be fair, he's always followed his philosophy. He never forfeits, he always has at least 2~3 arguments, and he usually uses like a dozen sources to support his ideas.
oh, I agree. Chidi was absolutely ridiculous in his inaction, and Eleanor was just mean while Jason wasted his life away. At least Tahani was good in terms of utilitarian outcomes.
I understand what you're thinking. Informed Consent seems big on the theoretical idea especially since Pro admitted that freedom was as important as life. But he stressed how we gain that specific decision, despite lack of information. You say we can never give enough information, and Pro countered that if this is the case, then it would be likely they would go in donating for free without information, which means more compensation is better. You added upon money's "unique coercion" factor, but Pro asks a few reducto ad absurdum arguments that put a lot of doubt in your case: "is Con going to somehow shut down all the jobs with financial gain and also containing a certain amount of danger? So Con wants people never to do anything where they can die or suffer great harm?" He accused you that your plan has the same logic as punishing people for suicide (purposefully putting themselves in danger when they can't think clearly, for their personal gains), and you didn't counter his fallacious arguments. I know they're flawed, but you didn't tell me why they're different from Pro's portrayal of "Gov gets to decide".
Pro separated your financial coercion and your informed consent -- I feel like they only work when combined together. In round 4 you basically gave up on economic coercion and instead stacked upon the idea of family coercion. That makes me feel the financial devil + no information is much weaker. I can understand how your argument works, but he sneakily unlinked your arguments with two separate worlds, which obviously doesn't make sense considering your case, but your linking only felt like there was some non-unique coercion with pro's case.
here's my personal thoughts, after reading it twice: Con's informed consent argument works very well combined with the idea that the regulation would still cause exploitation (though Pro seemed to desire to compare it to the status quo -- which completely illegalizes markets, so it's still freer). Pro has a lot of good impact negation because he highlighted that only those who wanted to donate, would be at risk. Then he noted your studies barely had any deaths or long term injuries, which you sadly mostly dropped at the end. The case still stands pretty strong if voters accept your framework, but it's hard to see why it defeats utilitarian/libertarianism. Pro didn't stretch it too far, and his framework put the market as a "win win" situation that seemed reasonable for the government. He kept trying to reason that "disability insurance" is even worse of a motivator than "$75,000" in terms of coercion. And I can't accept family because he states that honor pressuring will still exist in the no-compensation world, resulting in unsolved problems. In the end, if I had to vote it's extremely muddy in my opinion. Because you kind of gave up on the actual impacts, as ironic as that is, considering your voting is king of impacts. You didn't bother tackling how low the deaths were, which significantly weakens your case. And while Pro didn't outright say "we prevent people from getting another well deserved job", his question framed it in a way that infers "Con must somehow also prevent workers from going to hazardous construction sites". This is probably a tie for me.
No force allowed? Well obviously Star Wars is heavily weakened