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

n my first argument I made the argument that the Pro (to ensure that things are clear to the reader, the Pro will be "The Instigator" and the Con "The Contender" for the rest of my argument) side voluntarily creates a debate topic and leaves it open for anyone to voluntarily join. This is obvious, and my opponent did not disagree with this. I then, from that assumption, made two conclusions. The first is that the Pro is obligated to defend the argument made in the title of the topic. In his argument, Yraelz argued this point, so I will expand on it here. If the Pro creates a topic titled "Chocolate ice cream is the best kind," then the Pro side is obligated to argue that chocolate ice cream is indeed the best kind. On one level, this is simply a courtesy and something we should expect from a Pro that is doing his or her job. If the name of a given debate topic is thus, the Pro should naturally be expected to defend that point of view. On the other hand, this is necessary for any sort of order to having a debate. If the Pro is not expected to defend the point of view in the topic title, then the Con could never predict what the Pro were going to say; if the Pro did defend the topic in the first argument but then in the second argument said vanilla is the best ice cream, then everything the Con said in his first argument to rebut that would be completely pointless. There must be some sort of standard for Pro to adhere to. So, this essentially sets up two potential frameworks; one is where the debaters can debate about anything they want regardless of the intent of the debate, which moots the point of the debate and the site itself, and the other, more preferable framework is where the Pro must affirm the topic and the Con must negate it. Now, this is a slightly different question from the point being debated here. The corollary to my original assumption, which I established in my last argument, is that the Pro has the burden of proof of showing that they are correct about the stance in the topic. Above I demonstrated why it would not be a feasible framework to allow debaters to not have to debate about the topic at hand; but now I am talking about the question of voting. The central question is this: if the Pro does not prove the point of view in the topic title, can a person still ethically vote for the Pro? My answer, as I established it earlier, is an emphatic no for the reason of this point. The Pro has the obligation to prove the statement that is the "name" of the debate. My opponent argues that the Pro has no such obligation, but I showed above why the Pro should have an obligation to do so. There are two directions the debate went in from here. First, my opponent argued that the Con also has a burden of proof. I agree, but I would say that the only burden of proof the Con has is to disprove the Pro's supposed point of view. This is preferable if one considers potential situations that would occur if debates were conducted the way my opponent would like them to be. For instance, consider the debate "Racial profiling is an unethical method for law enforcement use." Under my framework, the Con would only need prove that racial profiling is not unethical. Under my opponent's framework, the Con would be forced to argue that racial profiling is ethical, i.e. he or she would be arguing that racism is good. This forces debaters into positions that they should not be in. The Con, as The Contender, ought only need to disprove what The Instigator sought to debate about. Second, this is where the second assumption I established in my first argument comes into play. On this site, voting is optional. This means that the only ethical reason for someone to vote is if someone has clearly won. Under my framework, the Pro wins if he or she proves the statement in the topic; the Con wins if he or she disproves that statement, and/or shows that the Pro has not proven the statement at hand. In the situation listed here, my opponent argues that it is only ethical to vote Con if the Con in fact does point out that the Pro did not prove their point of view. I disagree vehemently on this point, because this is a flawed way to view the voting system. Under my point of view, this is not a question of whether you should vote for the Con; it's the fact that you can not ethically vote for the Pro. If the topic name is "Chocolate ice cream is the best kind," and the Pro does not prove this, then a voter cannot ethically vote Pro. Now, this does not mean one could ethically vote Con either; if the Con did not prove that Chocolate is not the best kind of ice cream, then you could not ethically vote Con either. However, that is why we are fortunate enough to have an optional voting system. Under my framework, one only votes Pro or Con if they have upheld their burden of proof, as I mentioned above. My opponent responds to this by saying that one can only vote on arguments made in the debate; however, my framework neatly responds to this by establishing the fact that I essentially agree. One can only vote on arguments made in the round; so, if the Pro doesn't prove the topic, you cannot vote Pro. I would also like to extend the argument I made at the end of my last argument, that my opponent conceded. In the given situation, if the Pro argues that, instead, vanilla is the best kind of ice cream, they are actively disproving that chocolate is not the best kind of ice cream, and since Con is doing his or her job by proving that toffee is best (and thus chocolate is not), the only way to vote is Con. Finally, my opponent tries to apply this situation to the current debate. However, this does not apply for a couple of reasons. First, the debate topic itself was somewhat ambiguous; obviously it is always "possible" for someone to vote Pro, however based on the "debate" we had in the Comments section of another debate that led to this and also based on the arguments made in the first, supporting argument by the Pro, there was no question as to the intent of the topic. 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 has nothing to do with the current topic of debate; in the situation where the topic title is, "Chocolate is the best kind of ice cream," there is no ambiguity as to what the Pro is supposed to prove, and Con could legitimately argue that; whereas Con, based on the way the topic title is read, could not be voted for. The debate would also be a wash under the opponent's framework; if you agree with the Pro here, that if neither side argues what's in the topic, then you must default to voting based on who debated here, then you could still vote for me (Con) in this case, if you believe that I have done the better debating here (since who did the better debating is irrespective of how you feel on Pro's argument). At worst you would not vote, in line with my framework.