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

As this is the last argument, I will respond to some of the things my opponent mentioned in his last argument before summarizing my points. The gist of what much of my opponent is saying in his last argument focuses around the idea that if the debaters do not argue about what is in the name of the debate topic, then you must vote based on what is in the round. However, this is obviously contradictory to another of the points that he makes. My opponent claims, "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 the corollary to his theory that voting on something other than what was "in the debate" is unethical and is unfair intervention. However, it is actually he who is advocating unfair intervention: if the Pro (again, to clear up any confusion here, I am simply assuming that the Pro is The Instigator in this case; the results are the same if Con is The Instigator) chooses to unilaterally change the debate topic first, my opponent argues that if Con points this out, then Con wins; but if Con doesn't point this out and argues what the Pro said, then Con doesn't win. This is a completely arbitrary framework. Whether someone ought to win should not only be based on what the opponent said. My opponent attempts to justify this by saying that one cannot ethically vote on something that is not in the round; however, this is irrelevant to the current situation. As I stated in earlier arguments, since voting on this site is optional, I do not advocate that the Pro abandoning his/her original position means you must vote Con; however, it does mean that you cannot vote Pro. As I stated above, if Con were the Instigator and created the topic "Chocolate is the best kind of ice cream," and Con later argued that nuclear proliferation is bad, then he/she would no longer be disproving the fact that chocolate is the best kind of ice cream. Does it matter if Pro didn't point this out? One cannot ethically vote for the Con in that instance. This is why the second assumption I made in my first argument is so important to this framework; since one is not required to vote, one ought only vote when a debater has clearly proven the point they were supposed to prove. My opponent has consistently conceded this point - it is irrelevant whether the opposite side points out that the other side didn't uphold the original resolution, because whether they upheld it or not is something that is either true or untrue, and if it is untrue, one cannot ethically vote for the Pro. The other main argument my opponent justifies this with is the fact that "silence is consent;" i.e., if the Con doesn't point out that the Pro isn't upholding the original resolution, then you can only vote for who debated better in the round. While this may be true in a system where voting is mandatory and one has no other parameters to vote on, the voting system here is optional. If the topic is "Racial profiling is ethical," and Pro argues that abortion is good and Con argues that abortion is bad, then one cannot ethically vote for either debater - that is the crux of my framework. The only way to ethically vote for someone is if they uphold their original point. If Pro creates said topic, all Con has to do is give reasons why racial profiling is unethical or why the Pro is wrong. If Pro responds by saying abortion is good (and thus concedes that he cannot ethically be voted for on the topic of racial profiling), all Con needs to do is reiterate his arguments on racial profiling to win. If Con instead debates what the Pro is saying, Con is conceding any chance to win the debate. Note that we are debating about ethics here and not just about possibilities; if one would like to vote ethically and for the "correct" reasons, then one could not vote for either party. Of course, you can vote in general, and no one can stop you; but that is not what we are discussing here. My opponent argues that this very subject does indeed apply to what we are talking about; the name of this topic is, "The Ethics of Voting. It is possible for someone to vote Pro in the below listed scenario." Now, in my last argument I said, "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." This means that if there is some clerical error that causes the name of the topic to be different from what both debaters originally intended to debate about, then the debaters can mutually agree to change this in the round so that it becomes clearer to the voter what they ought to be arguing about. My opponent responds by saying that this is essentially what he is arguing for; however, this is clearly untrue. Prior to this debate, we had discussed this, and his first argument indicates that we would like to discuss whether it is ethical to vote Pro in the listed scenario, not simply "possible." This fits the requirement in my statement - it is not what the debaters intended to debate about. However, if the Pro creates the topic "Chocolate is the best kind of ice cream," and then stops debating about said topic, it is clear that the implicit assumption coming in was that the topic was about chocolate ice cream, just as the implicit assumption I agreed to when I accepted this debate was that we were arguing about whether it is ethical to vote. If both debaters start to argue about a different topic, this is not something one can ethically vote on, as it was not the original debate topic. My opponent misinterpreted my statement, and thus has essentially conceded the fact that the only ethical situation where the topic can be changed and it is still ethical to vote for either party is when the topic is not what both debaters intended to debate about. Con not pointing out that Pro is no longer debating about whether chocolate ice cream is the best does not mean that Con originally intended to debate about whether vanilla ice cream is the best, or abortion or nuclear proliferation. Thus, it is irrelevant to whether one can vote Pro. Finally, I would like to go back over the inherent error my opponent made in choosing this particular situation he did. If the topic is "Chocolate ice cream is the best kind," and Pro argues that Vanilla is the best kind, Pro is now arguing that chocolate ice cream is NOT the best kind. If Con argues that toffee is the best kind of ice cream, then Con is also arguing that chocolate ice cream is NOT the best kind. Since it was originally Con's burden to point out that chocolate ice cream is not the best kind, one can only logically (and ethically) vote Con in this instance. This situation is quite clear. This does not mean Con is now arguing against "Vanilla is better than Toffee;" it means Pro is disproving his own original point and Con is still proving his original point. There is no ethical way to vote Pro and it is quite ethical, and correct, to vote Con in this instance. To summarize: - Voting on this site, being optional, means one can only vote Pro if Pro upheld his or her burden and proved the topic statement true; similarly, the converse applies. If Pro and/or Con do not uphold their burden(s), one cannot ethically vote for them. - I concede that one can only ethically vote on arguments brought up in round. However, this goes my way since this means that one can only ethically vote Pro if Pro proves the original statement; if Pro does not do this, then one cannot vote on anything else Pro said. - Voting on the original topic, and not necessarily what the debaters ended up arguing about, is actually the only inherently non-arbitrary way to vote; what happens if Pro argues abortion bad and Con argues nuclear proliferation bad? - In this debate, the intent of the debate was not quite what was stated in the topic, so we modified it. This is only ethical if the intent of the debaters was not the original topic.