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

Alright thank you for arguing this with me. I will attack the points in your argument that need to be attacked and then go on to show you exactly how this is possible. "1. The "Instigator," as this site calls it, has voluntarily taken the initiative to start a debate topic, and when they do, lay out an open challenge for anyone to argue their acceptance (or rejection) of the topic at hand." >> This is very true. You go into more detail on this later. However I would simply like to point out one thing. The person who accepts the debate is being just as voluntary as the instigator. In other words the contender has just as much voluntary action involved as the instigator. "Creating this topic is tantamount to saying "I must prove that Chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream." All that the Con side must do is prove that Chocolate is not the best, or that there is some other ice cream that is better than Chocolate." >>It is not the same as saying "I must prove that Chocolate ice cream is the best" it is the same as saying "I will be arguing that chocolate ice cream is the best" "The burden of proof on this case is on the Pro. Con has no burden other than proving Pro wrong; Pro must defend against Con's remarks AND defend his/her original point of view." >>Here is where I bring my first point back into play. You say the Pro has the burden of proof, but this is not true, both sides equally volunteered to do the debate. Both sides have a burden of proof to show you that their side of the resolution is correct. For instance if the resolution is the ice cream one then the pro ideally is proving it is and the con is proving it isn't. "This is the burden of being the Instigator; when one creates that topic, one must defend the point of view. This will be the primary reason why you would not be able to ethically vote Pro in this situation." >>I will do a lot more on this farther down. However for now all I must say is I would like to offer me some source where it says the person who creates the debate must defend it. This is simply your opinion and I will show you how it is flawed later. Alright now for my proof on how this works and why. I will offer you scenarios, parallels to the situation if you will, and prove in logical order. 1. A dropped argument in a debate is a conceded one. For instance if Pro says during a debate that, "Apples are red", and Con does not say anything about this then Con is agreeing that "Apples are red". Another prime example in this argument itself would be me having dropped my opponents second point that says specifically, "2. Voting for someone, on this site, is optional." thus I have conceded it. 2. A voter can not ethically vote on an argument that was not brought up in the debate. For instance, in a debate about whether Democrats or Republicans are better the Pro says "Republicans are red which is cooler" and Con says "Democrats are blue which is cooler" a voter cannot say "Democrats have a better platform, thus I will vote for Con" as that is not a point brought up in the debate. 3. A voter can only ethically vote on arguments brought up in round. Thus in the last example only on the Red vs. Blue issue. 4. Under these premises a voter can ethically vote for something that has nothing to do with the resolution. For instance. On my current example. If the pro decides not to debate the resolution and instead debates Vanilla he has effectively changed is advocacy. However, if the Con does not point out the change in advocacy then it is thereby a dropped issue and a voter cannot ethically vote on it. Thus the new argument standing in the round, "Vanilla is good" has been conceded by the con through the con's silence on said issue. To vote on the fact that Pro did not uphold the resolution would be to blatantly disagree with Con as he has agreed that Pro can change is advocacy to Vanilla. If Con pointed out that Pro was not upholding his/her resolution then the voter could ethically vote on this fact. However once again, if con concedes this, through silence, a voter cannot vote on this issue. Lets look at our current resolution, "The Ethics of Voting. It is possible for someone to vote Pro in the below listed scenario." My resolution says quite clearly two different sentences. They appear to have no link between them what-so-ever, except if you look to my first round, which creates a link. Thus I have changed my advocacy from that of the resolution. The resolution states quite clearly that it is possible for a voter to vote Pro in scenario. However this would be impossible for my opponent to argue, thus I changed my advocacy to ethically vote in my first speech. My opponent has conceded to this change in advocacy thus no voter can ethically vote on it. Thanks! =)