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

I will start by providing two assumptions that will become the foundation for my arguments. 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. 2. Voting for someone, on this site, is optional. The basis of my point of view is based on the first assumption. The Instigator is essentially saying, to all potential challengers, that "this is my point of view; your job is to prove me wrong." This means that when someone creates the debate "Chocolate ice cream is better than any other kind," they are actively saying that this is the point of view they would like disproved by the Con side. Even though the Contender voluntarily chooses to accept a given debate, the Instigator still has the burden of proof to prove their point of view. 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. 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. 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. Note that the debate topic here is not whether you simply "can" vote for Pro; anyone "can" do that by clicking the mouse button. Rather, we are debating over whether it would be ethical/correct to vote for Pro in this situation. Second, the second assumption I made is a supporting reason why this point of view on how this debate format works is the best one. Since voting on any topic is completely optional and voluntary, and no one is obligated to vote on any topic, one should only vote for the Pro (Instigator) if the Pro has defended their side adequately. This is why my opponent's argument that, if the Con did not point out that the Pro had not defended their point of view adequately, is irrelevant in this circumstance: under my framework for voting, one only votes for the Pro if and only if the Pro has proven the point of view established in the topic title. Since you do not have to vote, you can be absolved of any moral/ethical guilt you might have felt from voting Con, by simply abstaining from voting. The corollary to this is that when someone votes, they are NOT voting on who did the "better job" in general; they are voting based on who did the "better job" proving or disproving the topic, respectively. If the Pro did not prove the topic, then by default Pro cannot win. This does not mean that Con has won; it only means you cannot ethically vote for Pro. I would also like to note that in this instance, the scenario my opponent chose is self-defeating to his own argument. If the topic is "Chocolate ice cream is better than any other kind," and the Pro argues that, instead, "Vanilla ice cream is better than any other kind," Pro is not only arguing something different, he is actually arguing against his own topic. If Pro wins that Vanilla ice cream is better than any other kind, he has in fact proven that Chocolate ice cream is NOT the best kind, and should therefore lose automatically. If Con wins that Toffee is the best kind, he has proven that Chocolate ice cream is not the best kind, and should therefore win, as he/she has fulfilled his burden.