Shove the Fatman, or, Huzzah for Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism!

I was hoping to have a philosophical debate over an issue of ethics, but instead this round must focus on propriety in argumentation. Please extend my initial two contentions, as they have not been directly challenged. Grouping 1&2: Con still can't do that. Con argues that his additions to the hypothetical are not inconsistent with the hypothetical. A premise is not a plan. You can't use a 'do-both' permutation on a hypothetical question that forms the premise of the debate. It illegitimately changes the subject of debate and nullifies any attempt to discuss the original topic: proper ethical behavior in a given situation. One of the strengths of using hypotheticals is that a situation can be created that focuses attention on troublesome points[1]. In this instance, the troublesome question is whether a person is justified in diverting a force of death from killing five people at the cost of one life. Con's approach robs the hypothetical of this power by adding extraneous elements which prevent the hypothetical from raising the issue. If we make the five people monsters, then that radically shifts the meaning of the hypothetical. If we make the single person vastly more important, that radically shifts the meaning of the hypothetical. If we allow the actor as much time to gather information as he wishes, or allow him to have observed any given piece of information prior to the decision, that radically shifts the meaning of the hypothetical. All the relevant details to the hypothetical were given in the OP. Con's approach to the question attempts to shift the debate from a question about what is the ethical action in a given situation to a question of what additional information we can imagine that would make the dilemma easier to resolve. This approach has the effect of preventing the original question from being discussed, let alone answered. This is bad for debate. I refer to the resolution: "I am asserting that in the Train Problem (as described below), pushing the Fatman based on a Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism (SERC) ethic is more justifiable than any other combination of action and justification the negative will propose." Con has not addressed the Train Problem as described, but has remade it to favor his position. Con is therefore off-topic in this debate. These revisions should be rejected and a vote given to Pro. 3: Con's justification problems Con seems to be running multiple largely undefined ethical frameworks simultaneously. He argues both that guilty people should be punished, even if it results in a greater cost in human life and it isn't what they want. He then argues that suicide victims should be allowed to die because it is what they want. He then argues that causing an explosion would be bad because it would not preserve the most life, which I assume he considers a good. He then argues that one is not obligated to give one's life to save others if the others are in danger because it is their own fault. Running through that list, I'm seeing bits of deontology, relativism, utilitarianism, and what I think is more deontology. However, none of it is defined, none of it is explained, none of it is argued for, and most of it is contradictory. Con has not provides a clear alternative ethical justification for any of his actions. Moreover, it is unclear if he intended to provide a single ethical system and did not or if he intended to use a scattershot approach and reel off as many ethical systems as possible in the hopes that the judges would feel at least one was superior. At this time the action and ethics proposed by Pro are superior to those proposed by Con because Pro's choice of action and justification is clearly identifiable and clear attempts to support them were given. Currently Con has 4-5 possible action/justification sets, none of which he has committed to or attempted to defend in depth. This is apart from the fact that they are all dependent on an illegitimate reworking of the hypothetical. It would be unfair to Pro for Con to throw out brief possible alternatives from every ethical framework available and expect Pro to defeat them all in-depth. It presents a moving target as Pro could successfully defeat 4/5, run out of space, and Con could claim victory on the fifth. Con needs to commit to one of his alternative justifications and defend it as superior to that proposed in the OP. This does not unfairly limit Con. Con had the exact same range of responses as Pro. Both Pro and Con are limited to pushing the switch/Fatman or not pushing the switch/Fatman, but both have the entirety of ethics to draw from in justifying their position. The only limitation Con had that Pro did not was that Con couldn't argue to push the Switch/Fatman based on a sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism rule that life should be preserved. Despite it being the third round of the debate, if Con is willing to stick to one of his already proposed combinations of action/justification and drop the off-topic revised hypo/scattershot portion of the debate, I won't argue for a Pro vote based on those dropped sections. 4. Con's actions fitting SERC Given Con's elaboration on his position I am no longer certain his proposed actions are best interpretable through SERC, largely because some of the actions seem to conflict and/or have conflicting justifications. I would be especially interested to see Con justify his universal statement that people appearing to be committing suicide are stupid and deserve to die. Summary: Current Pro's proposed action is the only action based on the hypothetical. Pro's ethical justification is the only one explored in any depth. 1&2: Con has not addressed the Train Problem as written, but has instead added to it and changed its meaning and focus. This is not only grounds for rejection as harmful to debate, but the resolution specifies that the topic is only concerned with the Train Problem as written, and so Con is off topic in this debate. 3. Con has not argued in any depth for an ethical justification for any of his action choices. To the extent he has justified them, they are scattershot and contradictory in addition to being based on off-topic revisions to the hypothesis. Pro has the advantage of clarity, depth, and topicality. 4. Likely irrelevant pending further rounds. [1] http://www.aclweb.org... (page 2)