The Ethics of Voting. It is possible for someone to vote Pro in the below listed scenario.

Alright I'm going to attack one paragraph at a time. Your first paragraph you simply pull your old argument back into this debate without actually addressing any of mine. Though I did notice something new this time, you said the pro creates the topic but this isn't true. The creator of any debate can be pro or con. You also attempt to point out that in my idea people could just debate about anything and this moots the point of debate however this is not true. If one debater feels it is doing so that debater can point out that the other is not uphold his/her side of the resolution, which in turn should result in that debater getting voted down. However if the debate was about abortion and the debaters end up arguing when a fetus is human life and drop the abortion question then it is still a debate even if it has little/nothing to do with the resolution. The fact that neither debater points the topic change out only means that they both agree with the topic change. Once again I bring across the point that for you to judge based on the original resolution, should the debater choose to argue about something else in round, is simply to go against the wishes of both debaters and bring your own opinion into a debate round. Your second paragraph is simply a reiteration. I will move on to the third. Your third paragraph entails this excerpt, "For instance, consider the debate "Racial profiling is an unethical method for law enforcement use." Under my framework, the Con would only need prove that racial profiling is not unethical. Under my opponent's framework, the Con would be forced to argue that racial profiling is ethical, i.e. he or she would be arguing that racism is good. This forces debaters into positions that they should not be in." >>My response. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Under my framework the Con can argue anything they want. As can the Pro. Under my framework the con can argue it is not unethical, the con can argue it is ethical etc.... Obviously if the Con decides to argue that it is indeed unethical then he is simply bolstering the Pro's argument and all the Pro needs to do is point this out. However if the Pro allows this to happen and then advocates that is ethical, thereby flipping the entire debate, this is his choice. At that point both debaters have mutually agreed to flip the entire debate, and this is how a voter should ethically vote. To not vote this way is to vote on an issue not presented within the debate. When judges/voters intervene in this way it voids the point of voting. On the flip side, if the Pro decides to argue the opposite from the start then the Con can point this out and will win. However if the Con agrees to the flip of argument and argues the opposite him/herself then both sides have mutually consented to debate a new issue. Once again to vote on the fact that they are both advocating differently than the debate was set up is to bring into the round ones own opinion and vote on an argument not presented. To vote on an argument not presented is ethically wrong in debate! This would be like me voting on a debate simply because I feel one way or another. This turns debates into polls! This method of voting is no better than voters who vote like a debate is a poll. Ethically wrong! Fourth paragraph you state, "In the situation listed here, my opponent argues that it is only ethical to vote Con if the Con in fact does point out that the Pro did not prove their point of view. I disagree vehemently on this point, because this is a flawed way to view the voting system. Under my point of view, this is not a question of whether you should vote for the Con; it's the fact that you can not ethically vote for the Pro. If the topic name is "Chocolate ice cream is the best kind," and the Pro does not prove this, then a voter cannot ethically vote Pro." >>The fact that debaters decide to argue something differently in round is no different than before the round. Debaters before round make the resolution to say one thing and try to debate it. However it is still a debater who makes the resolution at which point a decision is made by him/her to debate a topic. If after this point the debater decides not to debate the topic and his opponent concedes to the change in topic then both debaters are mutually agreeing to debate the new topic. TWO debaters agree mutually to debate a topic. This compared to the ONE debater who made the topic in the first place and decided no to debate it. Voters need to vote on what debaters choose to debate in round, not on the resolution. The resolution is typically what one enters the round expecting to debate, therefor if it is not debated that person can say it is abusive to them because they entered the round expecting to debate it. At which point they probably win the round on the abuse argument. However if both debaters choose to change resolution in round it should be of no consequence to either of them. Saying that you can't ethically vote pro in this situation moots the entire point of their mutual debate, and rigs the voting system. This is unfair to both sides!! Your 6th paragraph reads thus, "I would also like to extend the argument I made at the end of my last argument, that my opponent conceded. In the given situation, if the Pro argues that, instead, vanilla is the best kind of ice cream, they are actively disproving that chocolate is not the best kind of ice cream, and since Con is doing his or her job by proving that toffee is best (and thus chocolate is not), the only way to vote is Con." >>You can vote on the fact that Con correctly argues his side of the resolution but only if Con points this out. Otherwise Con has conceded to now be debating "Resolved: Vanilla is better than Toffee". To vote on the fact that Con upheld his side of the original resolution and Pro did not is to vote on your own argument that holds no ground in the current debate! THIS IS YOUR OWN OPINION, it is UNETHICAL to vote based on your own opinion! I advocate to voting on content presented in round! My opponents final paragraph attempts to disprove that this debate has any correlation to what I'm talking about but it clearly does. The debate topic states, "It is possible" obviously this not what either of us intended to argue thus we have mutually agreed in round to change the debate topic to what suits us. My opponent attempts to argue a justification for this and ends up simply agreeing with me by saying, quote, "In the case where the statement in the topic is not what the debater intended on debating, it can be reasonably changed provided both debaters agree." He is agreeing with me that if both debaters to change the topic in round that it can be ethically changed. This is true, and is what I am arguing. I am saying that if both debaters concede either through silence or text that they are now debating something that was not the original resolution then they can ethically do this and the voters can ethically vote for pro. Furthermore I would like to point out my opponent dropped all of these arguments, from my last round, thereby conceding them: "1. A dropped argument in a debate is a conceded one." "2. A voter can not ethically vote on an argument that was not brought up in the debate." "3. A voter can only ethically vote on arguments brought up in round." As my conclusion I would like to point out that under my opponents framework you cannot ethically vote in this round for me because I have not upheld the literal resolution. However you also cannot ethically vote for my opponent because he does not disprove the literal resolution. Thus my opponents framework moots the point of this entire debate. Thanks.