Instigator / Con
25
1520
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#717

Was Fraser Anning’s egg attack justified?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
9
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
4
5

After 5 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
29
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

This is relatively old news, but still talked about today.

In this short debate, we will be discussing if Will Connolly should have thrown an egg at Fraser Anning.

Here is a link to the video.
https://youtu.be/4X0ttuGq_9s

During a speech regarding the Christchurch shooting, a 17 year old cracked an egg on Fraser Anning’s head. Mr Anning then retaliated by slapping the teen twice, before the teen was tackled by multiple witnesses. No charges have been made against Will, however people want Fraser Anning out of the senate because he retaliated.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This boils down to whether the actions and conduct of the senator are sufficiently poor and sufficiently harmful to warrant having an egg thrown at him.

I believe the default position is to view an egg attack as far less serious than a punch: other than a possibility of allergy, chance of salmonella; it’s unlikely to cause physical harm, and is more an act to physically ridicule than to physically harm. Unless show otherwise, I will not view this attack in the same category as -say - the alt right guy being punched in the face.

However the default position is also imo that public figures should not be attacked for a superficial reasons, or anything outside of an exceptional set of circumstances.

That being said, pro and con both separate their arguments quickly: to con portraying this as an assault for no other reason than a difference of opinion. Pro portrays this as an attack on a prominent public figure who portrays dangerous or unreasonable views that are actively detrimental to a group of individuals.

So with that, I feel that pro has burden of proof:

So with that let’s move on. I feel pro does a good job of elaborating on Fraser’s hard right record. I don’t believe con managed to show the positions were not extreme, or are harmful - merely argued that other people agreed with them. While con does do some work on trying to justify the details of Annings quotes, I think pro does enough to convince me (via depth of tweets, letters, etc). To explain that FA holds extreme views that are potentially harmful to individuals - I don’t think pros explanations really do enough - nor do I think his own support for some of these broad positions refute the specific. severity of the quotes and examples.

Con also, at the end of his first round and throughout the second, distances his argument from a blanket justification of violence against anyone: but specifically points out that FA is in a position of power that gives him an ability to actualize his views - whilst the “many others” that agree with him do not.

In my view con does well here to elevate the severity based on FAs position - he could have gone further, but I feel this was sufficient.

Con pointed out the contributing factor that brought about the attack - which was a specific comment about a terrorist attack against Muslims. I feel con very much undersold this, and was very matter of fact on this point. There was a lot of space to grow.

Pro attempts to mitigate some of these attacks: firstly that these positions are shared opinions by many (I feel con blunted this above). Pro also attempted to mitigate this by pointing out the criminality is wills act, and the fact that will admitted it was wrong.

This is in a very grey area - one that which con argues is an argument from authority. The reason I say this is Grey is that will only got a caution, rather than any major penalty - which implies it wasn’t a big deal; and also because I believe the default position is that there is sometimes disparities between what is illegal and what can be justified (theft of bread when starving - as an example).

As such I don’t feel that it being illegal is necessarily a prima facia reason to claim the attack was unjustified.

The admission of wrong doing, on the other hand is the only argument made that I feel moves the needle towards con prodoes well enough here to explain that admission of wrong doing doesn’t necessarily mean the action was wrong. In some ways I feel that this is also in the same sort of grey area as the police aspect.

All told, I believe pro had the bigger job here. He had to show what was sufficiently bad about FA to warrant an egg, why this wouldn’t apply to everyone in a way that would necessitate random eggings if anyone, what precipitated the event, and why it was substantial enough to warrant the reaction. I believe pro did all these things - though he could have done more in several cases.

Finally: If this debate had been about “was it right”, or “was it legal” - the winner may have been judged differently, but in terms of justified - I believe pro has it, even though we may not necessarily condone, think it is a fair or correct action.

As a result: arguments to pro.

All other points tied. I considered awarding sources here, but haven’t for two reasons, firstly - I don’t think the arguments were sufficiently good to warrant one side winning by 5 points. Secondly while the sources were objective, and laid out matters of fact that helped support pros position - they were subjectively argued about subjective information (FAs beliefs). If pro had shown a credible objective harm (such as someone acting as a result of a FA tweet), this may have been different.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

CON began the first round by making an argument for free speech(If violence is justified towards Fraser then it should also be justified towards Will). PRO responded by explaining the difference between the action of Fraser and that of Will(Fraser has alt right views that, if carried out, would lead to a net negative impact on the Australian population because of alt right ideas etc). This is the difference that explains why Will's actions is justified(according to PRO).

CON never responded back to that and instead took the debate in a different direction by asking PRO whether PRO would justify violence towards CON if CON shared the same beliefs with PRO. PRO reaffirmed his belief that violence is justified if the end goal will lead to a greater social wellbeing. CON never responded to that but rather stuck to defining what Right wing beliefs he shared in common with Fraser. CON also went down a rabbithole of Immigration problem in Europe that has nothing to do with the theme of the debate. In the end, CON failed to challenge PRO's arguments justifying violence and thus PRO wins this debate in my opinion.
The debate theme was about whether the egg attack was justified on the senator, PRO explained that but CON responded on something else rather than that specific topic.

They both used similar sources with tweets and newspaper articles. Hence it is a tie on this ground.

Both seemed to have some tension before the debate with CON saying in the opening statement that he did now want to debate PRO again. However, CON kept making the debate more personal than was necessary. PRO was making arguments on the topic while CON kept making it personal(Would you justify violence against me?, insults towards the Liberals and labour party in Australia that was unnecessary for this debate that was simply on violence against the Australian senator). Though PRO did engage in arguing against CON's views(because CON challenged him in the first place), PRO did not really have to. Nonetheless, PRO had better conduct as they did not make it personal until after being challenged repeatedly by CON.

Spelling and grammar were fine throughout. Not much to say about this.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Brendo was insanely intelligent this debate, it shocked me thoroughly. He used BoP maneuvring to its maximum capacity from Round 1 alone, it is very strange to do so early but Omar didn't pick up on it. Omar tried to justify how dangerous the speech of the guy inciting violence against certain religions and ethnicities is but if speech is so powerful why didn't Will just talk against the guy? Brendo sandwiched Omar between having to either concede that it was assault, in order to talk about how wrong it was for Anning to 'fight back' or alternatively to bring the opponent, while justifying the right to smash an egg on someone's head, to end up admitting that if one is free to do something as overt as that surely freedom of speech is more so paramount.

From Round 1, Omar had NO WAY out other than perhaps to suggest that 'justified' doesn't equal 'correct' but Omar doesn't go for that route. I don't see the word 'justified' defined the entire debate. Brendo played this FUCKING PERFECT, it shocked me!

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I was tempted to consider the conduct here ( I don't want to debate you vs. you are a bad person, etc.) In truth, though, the tension between the opponents improved the readability of the debate. The standard is conduct that makes the debate less coherent and the opposite proved true. So equal conduct. Honestly, I'd like to see more debates between Brendo and Omar- I sense a lot of investment on both sides.

Sources were of good quality, efficient and relevant. Pro probably used more twitter examples then necessary to make Pro's case, but I think this was more of a stylistic choice- "hey, this guy has a real history of hating some groups of people- this is not a one off " sort of thing.

Clarity of argument was occasionally problematic on both sides. Much of the debate was irrelevant political side-taking.

Cons opener is pretty straightforward: Freedom of Speech is a Human Right. Will Connolly's violence vs. Fraser Anning during a public speech constitutes a violation of Anning's right to free speech and is therefore unjust.

Cons R1 supports were mixed:

1.Connolly admitted the wrong of his own action, (strong)
2. Connolly is of a responsible age, (unwarranted but sufficiently evident)
3. If Anning's violent reprisal was unjust, the provoking violence must also be unjust (weak)

Pro weakens his argument right off the bat by saying,"I wouldn't want society to be okay with...violent [sic] but..." and goes on to ask society to be okay with this act of violence because:

1. The victim has a history of hate speech and support for unjust legislation and scummy exploitation. (well supported)
2. The victim has no right to free speech "Remove people like Fraser from public discourse..." (unsupported)
3. The consciences of 17 year old are not fully developed. (supported)

The remaining rounds are fairly unfocused. Con improves his case a little by noting that the relevant justice system found Connolly's act unjust. Con correctly establishes that removing the politics and biography of the victim makes the injustice clear: most 17 years olds are held accountable for most unprovoked acts of violence against strangers.

Pro's argument desperately needed some higher cause to justify Connolly's violence: some argument that violent speech is sufficient provocation for violent acts (and a strong show that Anning's speech was violent), or that Connolly's choice of egg represented a nonviolent alternative in an essentially symbolic assassination. Some larger injustice that outweighs a minor injustice. What we are left with is Pro's suggestion that some speech or speakers ought not to be protected. Pro needed a plan for going forward with this idea- where is the dividing line, what makes some speech unprotectable, who decides? Pro's argument amounts to an appeal to political view: this guy is so politically wrong that some minor act of violence inhibiting speech is justified.

This voter believes no reaction to an act can reframe the justice of an act: each action must be evaluated in the context and intent of the moment. An excessive reprisal ought never improve an unjust provocation. The character of a victim never justifies an act of violence. Acts of violence do deny free speech in most cases and the exceptions must be explicit and generalized without political consideration, certainly not left to the underdeveloped consciences of 17 years olds. Pro failed to offer a compelling cause to violate the victim's rights.

Arguments to Con

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Reason for Argument

Con says:
"Senator Fraser Anning was assaulted last month by a 17 year old named Will Connolly. The reason why Will chose to assault him is because Will disagreed with Fraser Anning’s opinion. During his speech regarding the Christchurch shooting, Fraser Anning was struck in the back of the head by an egg. After the ordeal, multiple people wish for Fraser Anning to be fired from the senate."

All factual so far.

Con says

"This debate will be based on whether the egg attack was justified, and if Will should have thrown the egg at Fraser Anning.

Firstly, I do not agree with Fraser Anning’s comments about the shooting. However, freedom of speech is a human right. Fraser Anning was simply stating his opinion regarding the shooting, as many other people have already done. "

fair point.

This last one's too big to paste. But basically Con's position is that if one of them is to be punished, the other one should also be punished. Con's arguments are lacking many details here. Con leaves out the age of the attacker which is important in this case and leaves out the fact that an adult assaulted a minor with unnecessary force of what was essentially just a prank. I don't see enough here to say that it's not justified. Let's look at pro's argument.

Pro Said:
"A far right senator called Fraser Anning (69) was hit with one egg while being interviewed by the media. The person who threw the egg was a 17 year old boy called Will Connolly. Sure I wouldn't want society to be okay with wasting eggs as throwable objects or even be violent but to say Will is not justified by Fraser’s tweets making up conspiracies linking Muslims immigration to what happened at the NZ shooting is absurd.
The tweet that Fraser Anning on the day of the Christchurch mosque shootings was "Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?""

So here pro enlightens us on more details that con left out. The comment made was a horrible one which some people might say incites violence. Inciting violence is not the same as exercising free speech. This really helps bring pros case home as he also mentions the age of the child and the reasoning behind the attack itself. Pro also correctly points out that this was "one egg" over one persons head and that is hardly comparable to the violence inciting speech and the assault on a minor.

In subsequent rounds. No more main points were introduced, rather, there was much contention over the main points. Con use hypotheticals and other examples and pro kept rightfully stating that there needed to be something to support con's claims. The debate fizzled out into rebuttals which in my opinion makes them more difficult to follow.

In the end, Pro had shown using current events that there was a public outcry for this boy and that his egg prank ultimately was a form a political protest and therefore justified.

All other points tied.