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

I thank Con for an engaging debate. First, please continue to extend my two initial contentions regarding the action/combination of push/SERC. The debate has come down to this argument: Debating what to do in a hypothetical scenario is a practice of justifying the best course of action for the given parameters. If one adds additional parameters to the scenario, that person has changed the hypothetical. Thus, no matter how correct his/her arguments may be within the changed hypothetical, the debater is not justifying the best course of action within the *given* scenario. Thus when contrasted with an argument that actually is debating the given scenario, the answer to the changed scenario should lose. In Round 3, Con agreed that there were many possible details he could add that could radically shift the meaning of the hypothetical, and attempted to justify adding them. In Round 4, he denies modifying the scenario. Adding details to the scenario is modifying it. No matter what ethical framework one chooses, one could justify it by radically shifting the hypothetical until it matches that framework, which is what Con has done for all his possible action/justification pairs. The hypothetical as stated didn't provide a way for Con to argue an ethic based on guilt, so Con just added guilty parties in and "Presto!", the hypothetical changed from a challenging ethical dilemma to a case of the obvious. The hypothetical as stated didn't provide a way for Con to argue an action that would prevent more than five deaths, so Con added in a threat to the whole train station, and suddenly the ethical calculus that we're supposed to be debating doesn't apply anymore. The hypothetical as stated didn't provide a way for Con to argue an ethic based on suicide, so Con added in suicidal behavior. This goes on for all Con's arguments. This isn't how hypotheticals work. When I say "in this hypothetical (as written) I assert X, prove Y is better," I do not have to explicitly add, "and don't add any extraneous facts which radically shift the meaning of the hypothetical so as to obscure the questions it poses." It's just basic good debating behavior that I shouldn't have to mention, any more than I should have to add specific disclaimers about misrepresenting sources, illegitimately shifting the burden of proof, going off topic, strawmanning, or any other bad techniques. Just because I don't specifically say, "Don't do this particular bad debating technique" does not give Con a license to use that technique. Radically shifting the meaning of a hypothetical is one of those techniques. As discussed earlier, shifting the meaning of the hypothetical stifles debate on the question it poses and attempts to wrench the discussion to an off-topic debate on the new question. This hypothetical: "In the first case, you are standing at a railroad switch. To one side is a single person tied to the tracks. To the other side are five people tied to the tracks. Is vastly different from this hypothetical: "In the first case, you are standing at a railroad switch. To one side is a single innocent person tied to the tracks. To the other side are five murderers who have tied the innocent to the tracks and then allowed themselves to be tied up in order to promote their insane cult leader's serial killing plans." It not only sends the debate spinning off topic, but does so in a way that unfairly reframes the debate to minimize ground for the other side. Con has changed the hypothetical so that Pro would no longer be advocating saving five lives at the cost of one, but saving five monsters at the cost of an innocent. Nothing in the hypothetical as written supports that, Con has added all those details, and it forces Pro to defend an untenable position which neither Pro nor the hypothetical support. It's an unfair usurpation of ground and should be rejected. It should be rejected for being off-topic. It should be rejected as bad debate practice as regards stifling discussion. It should be rejected as bad debate practice for trying to restructure unfair ground for debate. Con argues that he is justified in doing this because in the resolution "The details are so relevant that a decision cannot be made ethically without them." However this justification falls flat. While Con asserts that the history of the problem as used in ethics is irrelevant, it actually undercuts his justification. Ethicists have been using the scenario as written to argue for ethical decisions for more than 50 years. My links in the last round demonstrate that not only is it possible to make an ethical decision based on the limited information in the problem, but it has already been done. I specifically pointed out in my Thomson & Parent link[1] that the hypothetical is meant to force you to make a decision knowing that you don't have all the details but having to make the best decision you can in the circumstances. Yes, obviously there are details left unsaid that could affect one's decision. That is true in any hypothetical. That doesn't mean it's ok to add whatever details you want into the hypothetical, radically shifting its meaning to avoid addressing the elements of uncertainty inherent to the problem. Con argues that "making observations" was never excluded from the pool of actions from which he could draw. This is true. Con can choose to observe the scenario. What Con cannot do is use that as an excuse to make up new details that he observes. Imagine this in another context. Consider a resolution that the US should increase funding for AIDS treatment in Zaire. Con arguing to decline funding and put that money in research would be an unobjectionable counterplan case, but stating that one "chooses to observe the research towards a cure and, finding one, cures AIDS entirely without increasing funding" would be unfair. Just because the Pro didn't state "and no adding in a cure for AIDS that bypasses the point of debate" doesn't mean that Con gets free reign to add whatever details makes the case easier to argue. That would certainly be a relevant, meaningful, and game changing detail to add, but Con doesn't get to "observe" it and add it to the debate just because it would be an important fact. That's what Con has done in this debate. The hypothetical offers a limited number of facts which are widely accepted as being sufficient to make an ethical argument with. Con has added facts to the hypothetical, radically changing the problem and possible solutions, just as adding a cure for AIDS would radically change the problem and solutions in the above example. Just because the facts Con wishes to observe are important, doesn't mean he gets to add them in, just as a cure for AIDS if it existed being an important part of the above example doesn't mean he would get to add it in that situation. Even in the 3-point argument Con claims is solely based on the hypothetical with no additions, he has added in paralysis, fault, and my hypothetical behavior. In addition he doesn't claim how it is BETTER than the action/justification in my original two contentions. My justification is better because it is part of a consistent detailed ethical framework rather than one-line unsupported assertions mixing justifications based on relieving misery, guilt, and reciprocal behavior, all of which are asserted as if self-evident rather than supported by argumentation or even links to supporting ethicists. Summary- Conduct: Tie, unless you think the debate techniques cross from argumentation S&G: Tie Arguments: Pro - the only side that provided supported, legitimate argumentation in the context of the hypothetical. Sources: Pro - Pro used relevant links to valid sources which defined terms, established context, and provided expert support for claims. Con's Wiki and video links were either tangential or didn't support the case (topicality). Cite in comment