Instigator
Points: 25

Was Fraser Anning’s egg attack justified?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 29
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.
Round 1
Published:
I do not wish do debate you again. Especially after you had insulted me in the previous debate. However it is too late and I do not have a choice.

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.

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.

According to the Australia Human Rights Commission, ICCPR article 19 states “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

Fraser Anning was providing his opinion during a speech when Will made the decision to interfere by assaulting him. What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?

Secondly, you may argue that Fraser Anning should be punished for retaliating against Will. If you wish for Fraser Anning to be punished, then it would mean that you also wish to punish Will for assault. Will is the aggressor in this scenario. He made the conscious decision to assault another person. Why should Fraser Anning be charged with assault, while Will is able to simply walk away without any consequences. He is old enough to understand that his actions have consequences. Even Will himself admitted that what he did was wrong.  During an interview on SBS, Will said “There is no reason to physically attack anyone.” This shows that even the person who committed the assault does not believe that what he did was right.

What gives anyone the ability to take away another person’s right? Will should not have attacked anyone. No one has the right to censor a person’s opinion. Like everything, I admit that there are exceptions, but I do not need to explain it further unless you want me to do so.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Sources
Australian human rights commission - Freedom of speech.

Published:
I will be giving my side of what occurred and will leave rebuttals in the next Round because Brendo is making similar mistakes as he did in our same debate on DDO. This would be an improved version of my DDO argument.

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?"


Will Connolly used that as the reason to carry out his egg assault. Will Connolly also stated he will with the remaining GoFundMe give it to the victims. 
"The boy admitted the attack was in response to Anning's controversial tweet following the New Zealand mass shooting on Friday in which he linked Muslim immigration to violence in the country."
"Connolly's supporters also launched a GoFundMe page for his legal fees that has since raised nearly $80,000 - which he plans to donate to the families of the victims."

Before I get into my arguments I would like to tell you about who Fraser Anning is and why I called him far-right. Here we go:
Anti-Muslim propaganda:
Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?
If Islam is so peaceful why don’t Muslim migrants go live in rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE? Surely these countries can help fellow Muslims out and live together peacefully under Islamic rule of law?
UPDATE: Simon Strombon, the organiser who wanted an Islamic call to prayer at an ANZAC Day Ceremony in New Zealand has reversed his decision. His traitorous idea was similar to that of Jacinta Ardern who broadcasted the Islamic call to prayer across NZ. Disgraceful.
An Islamic call to prayer is now being broadcasted at an ANZAC day ceremony in New Zealand. Titahi Bay RSL has decided to use this sacred commemoration for our past dead heroes in world wars, for left wing virtue signalling. Absolutely shameful.
I stand by my comments on Muslim immigration. Despite all the left wing hysteria today, no one actually argued against what I said, because it is 100% true. Countries that had increased Muslim immigration had increased crime and terrorism. Sweden, Germany, UK, France etc.
I wonder if there will be as much outrage from the left wing when the next Muslim terrorist attack occurs? Most likely silence and talk about “lone wolf attacks, mental illness and no connection to Islam”.
I can see what has happened in the UK where 429 Muslims are in political office and now hold massive influence over law making including introducing Sharia Law. Islam is NOT compatible with Australia and our politics.
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1105374792704700416
Other positions that are not primarily focused on Muslims
For Nationalism
Australia is NOT for sale. Both the Liberals and the Labor party for years have been selling out our farms and national assets like the Port of Darwin. It’s time to take back what belongs to the Australian people!
Back at the range! Only a few years ago the Venezuelans were completely disarmed by their government and now they are being shot in the streets for trying to access food brought to them by the Americans. Australians deserve the right to defend themselves and bear arms.
iii) traditional family values, including recognising marriage as only the union of a man and a woman and the sanctity of human life at all ages, including both the unborn and the elderly
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1114777774466584577

If this was his standard he is basically against all Muslims because all of them can’t integrate.
ii) social cohesion by an immigration program that gives preference to those best able to integrate and assimilate
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1114777704232972290

Saying Europeans have a right to defend Austraila from threat of being a minority from other races even though European is not a race.
We have the right to preserve our ethno-cultural identity. Europeans are heading towards becoming a minority in their own countries around the world. We have a right to defend our people and our way of life.
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1113641596023496704

For freedom of speech so that he can say his outrageous views:
The globalist traitors, are trying to silence anyone who dare speak out against their agenda, both on social media platforms with internet censorship and in parliaments across the world with ridiculous “hate speech” laws being passed. Freedom of speech must be defended!
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1113636366707871744

Can be implied from this that he would call people who defend harassment online bad people:
We need absolute freedom of speech! The traitorous politicians are desperately trying to take your right to freedom of conscience and expression like something out of 1984. Good men died for our right to freedom of speech and I will always defend it.
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1113635207398154246

Using his free speech to spread false information:
The Australian people are tired of mass immigration being forced upon them! They’re feeling the effects of this flood of indiscriminate immigration which has destroyed social cohesion, increased terrorism, suppressed wages growth and is causing increased congestion.
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1113400760023126016

So basically from that since Brendo over hear believes in freedom of speech he allows people like Fraser Anning who speads false information about Islam, “elites”. Is against gay marriage, for an ethno-state, for removing gun-laws and for nationalism to have a platform.

Will is more justified in what occurred because one was a 69 year old and the other was a 17 year old. The situation involved an assault by two parties.  The prefrontal cortex is fully developed at an age of 25. Will is 17 so he does not have a full capacity to make good decisions. On the other hand Fraser Anning already has a full developed prefrontal cortex and had one for about 44 years. This means Fraser Anning had enough time to adjust accordingly to be making good decisions but that did not stop him from posting those tweets on Twitter and assaulting Will back after Will assaulted him. With this in mind Fraser Anning was not justified by his response due to how minimal the damage that was done with the egg and the amount of damage he done to the 17 year old before Will was restrained.

Will was also more justified in his response because Fraser seeks to divide Australia rather than bring together like what Will did. Given the comments made by Fraser he is advocating for hatred for people who do not share the same colour of skin whereas Will by committing to the egg attack has made him the spotlight of the attention. The bad side is that people who already believed can now support another far-right individual but now the media can bring this person to the public in order to be named the awful person he is. People who were now on the fence about if Fraser Anning was a good guy or not see the awful person that he is and I think that is for the best. Remove people like Fraser from public discourse because I am sure he had these views for quite some time and at this point he is incapable of changing his mind whether he is a bad faith actor or not.
Source 1: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6846431/Egg-Boy-admits-wrong-smash-egg-Fraser-Anning-says-incident-united-people.html
Source2: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051


Round 2
Published:
You were explaining the reason’s why he is a far right senator as if the reason you believe the attack was justified is because you also disagree with him. I am a right wing person, and I agree with some of those things he had said on Twitter. Are you going to hunt me down and throw an egg at me? You even include irrelevant comment such as gay marriage. Many other people also disagree with gay marriage. It is not exactly relevant to the Christchurch attack.

Regarding your claim about Will’s egg attack being justified because Anning fought back. Authorities came to the conclusion that he acted in self defence. A quote from the BBC reads, “On assessment of all the circumstances, the 69-year-old's actions were treated as self-defence and there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.” The article then follows this by stating that, “The teenager had also avoided prosecution but would receive an official caution.”

Even through the eyes of the authorities, this attack in unjust. What makes Will above the law? Will assaulted a 69 year old man. The only reason you believe the attack is justified is because the senator has a different opinion to you. If Will assaulted a random 69 year old man, you would be absolutely fine with the 69 year old man defending himself. But because this 69 year old man had made some conservative statements, it is completely fine. This is an example of hypocrisy.

Source
BBC - Fraser Anning acted in self defence
Published:
You were explaining the reason’s why he is a far right senator as if the reason you believe the attack was justified is because you also disagree with him. 
People turn to violence because they have a disagreement. In order for it to be justifiable I would consider it to be because that person is impacting their well-being. Will must have thought Muslims can't stand up to him but he can and with that he has brought good to the world. He stated he will give money to the people impacted and has highlighted an awful man with which I hope he is removed from Twitter at the very least.
I am a right wing person, and I agree with some of those things he had said on Twitter.
I don't know what you mean by some so do tell me in the next Round. Do you agree with spreading falsehoods about Islam? Removing gun-laws? Supporting an ethno-state? For nationalism? Against gay-marriage?
If you are for an enthno-state and/or for nationalism then you are considered far-right. Islam is basically a target for his message. Finding a common enemy can unite people. Just like what Hitler did. Replace Jews with Muslims and the gas camps would be simply variation of what can happen if they don't leave if it does get to that point.
Are you going to hunt me down and throw an egg at me? 
I don't particularly care about you because you are not a senator that is going to make laws with which will create a divide in Australia. I don't live in Australia but if you do support Fraser Anning by either voting for him or funding him then Muslims or people who are advocating are justified in committing violence against you. When your livelihood is attacked what am I supposed to say? Not fight for your survival?
You even include irrelevant comment such as gay marriage. Many other people also disagree with gay marriage. It is not exactly relevant to the Christchurch attack.
Will attacked Fraser Anning because of the man he is not because he was the first person he thought to use the egg on. With this in mind my tweets are definitely relevant to the topic because if Fraser Anning wasn't a far-right individual it wouldn't give a 17 year old the motive to assault him. 

Even through the eyes of the authorities, this attack in unjust.
Argument of authority. Just because some authority figure stated it to be true doesn't mean it is actually true. You have ran out of ideas to defend an awful person so you then decide to make an argument of authority. If you want to talk about court proceedings you would have stated it in Round 1 but you stated it in the 2 Round of 3 so it is unfair to ask of me to somehow foresee you bringing up this so that my argument can be based around it. 
What makes Will above the law? 
No where did I mention the law. I mentioned it based on if it was justified like the title and your opening statement suggests but now that you have ran out of ideas you have stuck to the law and think this is enough justification for your position. It is not when I simply can say laws are based on morals so my question would be why do you think it was immoral with what Will did? Saying something is illegal which makes it immoral is a bad argument but you have barely gave me anything to work with instead stuck to surface level arguments that lack detail.
The only reason you believe the attack is justified is because the senator has a different opinion to you.
This is not even wrong that is how bad this statement is. Even if I agree this does not change that wars are created because of different opinions. If I say no then I would be more specific about his beliefs like his lies and him spreading misinformation which can lead to more people believing in what he believes. 
The only reason you believe the attack is justified is because the senator has a different opinion to you.
Depends on the person. If it was the opposite of Fraser Anning so basically a senator who is a communist or Anarchist which can pass laws furthering their goals then I would consider the person justified if they are impacted. 
But because this 69 year old man had made some conservative statements, it is completely fine.
If these are actual conservative statements then Australia really doesn't shock me at all. The conservative party are irrational and pro-establishment that supports what they like. There principle is towards their Religion masqueraded as populism. To remain consistent if what is expressed by Fraser Anning is what the conservative party in Australia believes then violence is justified if you are impacted by what they are doing.

This is an example of hypocrisy.
I don't think you know what that means. You must first acknowledge a hypocritical stance that I have when learning about my prior positions then deem it to be hypocritical. You have assumed that I wouldn't have a problem if the person wasn't a conservative but I don't agree with Anarchists or Communists so your reasoning behind my hypocrisy is false therefore you conclusion about me being a hypocrite is false as well. 

Here is a video of how little support he has and thankfully they are calling him out. I would also like to note that in the video the woman states Fraser was never even elected to his position which means he is carrying out his views without the approval of a vote.

Here is a letter that Fraser Anning wrote. Filled with conspiracies and false information. Do also look how great freedom of speech is when you look at the comment section. The highlight of it was this comment "The New Zealang Mosque “shooting” video is so fake, it should be rated as a comedy! That’s why people are threatened with 10 to 14 years in prison for having the video."

Here I will be addressing his Round 1 in more detail he gave my Round 1 since I can show courtesy when my opposition doesn't.
I do not wish do debate you again. Especially after you had insulted me in the previous debate. 
I have nothing against you personally but I dislike your positions and from what you have said those "insults" were warranted. 
However it is too late and I do not have a choice.
You do have more than one choice. Forfeit or debate me. It is still a choice even if you don't like it.

The reason why Will chose to assault him is because Will disagreed with Fraser Anning’s opinion.
Many opinions that he uses to divide the country instead of bringing them together. For highlights do check my Round 1 where I find tweets of his.
multiple people wish for Fraser Anning to be fired from the senate.
Which would be the right thing. Fraser is a far-right figure who is openly loathes Muslims, for an ethno-state and for nationalism. These are positions held by Hitler (replace Jews with Muslims) and I doubt Fraser would even disavow him like how Richard Spencer couldn't even do when he was on the David Pakman Show. 

This debate will be based on whether the egg attack was justified, and if Will should have thrown the egg at Fraser Anning.
Thank you for reminding me that it is based on justification not on what is legal. I have also given a better argument for Pro Will throwing an egg than what Brendo was capable of doing. 

Firstly, I do not agree with Fraser Anning’s comments about the shooting.
Not enough to actually stop him from saying it. 
However, freedom of speech is a human right.
A human right? A right is dependent on who makes sure you have it. This would be the state. The Australian government. It is not given to you by God or something that everyone has with them on birth. This means a right is basically something enforced that allows or denies a person of something. Bad argument if he believed in God or if he was secular. No explanation given instead you are talking surface level. This requires more detail if I can actually respond to what you value instead of simply claims. 
Fraser Anning was simply stating his opinion regarding the shooting, as many other people have already done. 
Hitler simply stated his opinion for Germans to gas the Jews. This is an absurd point when many people speak their opinion and when they are in a position of power they can make what they will happen. Trump can use his free speech to declare war on Venezuela. Brendo would not be opposed to Trump saying it because that was his opinion even though if Trump was not allowed to say it there would be no war against Venezuela.

According to the Australia Human Rights Commission, ICCPR article 19 states “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
Thank you for telling me the right is given to Australians by the government. 
What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?
If that person is expressing an opinion which can lead to people getting harmed then it is justified that his opinion is interfered upon.
If you wish for Fraser Anning to be punished, then it would mean that you also wish to punish Will for assault
Yeah sure but I would still have a harsher sentence for Fraser compared to Will. Turns out both did not receive punishment. 
Will is the aggressor in this scenario. He made the conscious decision to assault another person. Why should Fraser Anning be charged with assault, while Will is able to simply walk away without any consequences. He is old enough to understand that his actions have consequences.
The conscious of a 69 year old is higher than a 17 year old so to expect a 17 year old to be as capable of a 69 year old is absurd. Fraser Anning also understands his actions have consequences then why should he be off to hook when he is more developed to understand the consequences of retaliating? I imagine your answer would not be that good but do still tell me. 
Even Will himself admitted that what he did was wrong.
Someone admitting they are wrong doesn't actually mean they are wrong. In the context of this Will is on a T.V. show and I doubt they will allow him to speak about what he truly advocates. If Will really thought he did was wrong he wouldn't have assaulted Fraser in the first place but he did.
“There is no reason to physically attack anyone.” This shows that even the person who committed the assault does not believe that what he did was right.
If there was no reason he wouldn't have attacked Fraser but he did so basically Will is being a hypocrite here and for you to not understand that is ironic when you called me a hypocrite. 
What gives anyone the ability to take away another person’s right?
When they are trying to take away a person who you care about rights.
No one has the right to censor a person’s opinion. 
A government can do what they want. It just so happens they can censor people and make that law. Rights are given by the government not God or somehow given to people on birth.
Like everything, I admit that there are exceptions, but I do not need to explain it further unless you want me to do so.
Seems like he doesn't even agree with what he even says. Saying:
no one has the right to censor a person's opinion
Is an absolute nothing in there says most of the time or depending on the circumstance. Even this:
Will should not have attacked anyone.
Is an absolute which leaves no room for exceptions. 

Round 3
Published:
You asked for what both Fraser and I support. So here is a list of some things you mentioned in round 1.

Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?
I agree with this statement. There is a link between Muslim immigration and violence. Take a look at Europe for example. There are now ‘no go zones’ in different places around Europe. This is because those towns are Muslim majority.

If Islam is so peaceful why don’t Muslim migrants go live in rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE? Surely these countries can help fellow Muslims out and live together peacefully under Islamic rule of law?
This statement is a valid point. Why do Muslims go to non-Muslim countries, then attempt to practice things that are illegal here, but normal in Muslim majority countries such as child brides and grooming gangs.

I stand by my comments on Muslim immigration. Despite all the left wing hysteria today, no one actually argued against what I said, because it is 100% true. Countries that had increased Muslim immigration had increased crime and terrorism. Sweden, Germany, UK, France etc.
This is just further information about the first quote. He is further explaining the link between Muslim immigration and violence.

Australia is NOT for sale. Both the Liberals and the Labor party for years have been selling out our farms and national assets like the Port of Darwin. It’s time to take back what belongs to the Australian people!
Here, he is explaining that Australia is selling its land to other countries. I also agree with Fraser Anning on this.

Back at the range! Only a few years ago the Venezuelans were completely disarmed by their government and now they are being shot in the streets for trying to access food brought to them by the Americans. Australians deserve the right to defend themselves and bear arms.
This is not about removing gun laws. He is stating that Australians should have the right to use firearms as a tool for self defence. Again, I agree with this.

iii) traditional family values, including recognising marriage as only the union of a man and a woman and the sanctity of human life at all ages, including both the unborn and the elderly
I do not have a problem with gat marriage. This may be one of the only things I disagree with. However, I would have voted no on the postal vote for a different reason that is suited for another debate.

In round 2, you explained that Will wouldn’t have an excuse to egg Fraser Anning if he wasn’t far right. This simply proves my point. Will chose to assault a 69 year old man because that man has different political opinions to him. You also continue to state that a 17 year old’s brain is not fully developed. Does this not also help my position? Will cannot thin for himself, therefore his opinions doesn’t matter? That statement isn’t right. He is 17. He is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. Does that mean any crime committed by a 17 year old should not count because they cannot think for themselves?

In that same open letter you used in round 2, Fraser Anning states, “All were innocent. The perpetrator is a monster and no sane person would think otherwise.” He followed this by saying, “I was referring, obviously, to terrorists and the backlash they potentially incite. Nowhere in that statement did I imply that any of the victims were fanatics. They were hapless victims.”

It seems that the media is the one making stuff up in order to make Fraser Anning out to be the bad guy. Fraser Anning was blaming other Muslim terrorists for the attack. Not the victims of it. At no point did he condone the behaviour of the shooter. However, other people (including you) believe that Anning was blaming the victims for causing the attack by simply being in the country when it happened. This is not true, evident by his statement.

There is no reason to censor Fraser Anning, although multiple people are attempting to. He was asked for a statement regarding the shooting, and he provided one. He was attacked for simply providing an opinion regarding an event in the news. Whether you agree with his statement or not, there was no justifiable reason for Will to assault Fraser Anning.

Sources
Fraser Anning’s letter

Published:
You asked for what both Fraser and I support. So here is a list of some things you mentioned in round 1.
Thank you now I can see how bad you really are.

I agree with this statement. There is a link between Muslim immigration and violence. Take a look at Europe for example. There are now ‘no go zones’ in different places around Europe. This is because those towns are Muslim majority.
He mentioned nothing about "no-go zones" so the burden is on you to prove they even exist. Shame you were not capable. The statement can really easily know his true agenda. Here is my variation of his: Does anyone still dispute the link between white people and violence? From my statement you can gather if you are a rational person that no-one disputes that white people do commit crime yet he thinks people dispute Muslim immigrants committing crime. This straw-man he created is un-warranted because he is not able to tell the readers who is disputing such a claim. If he really had a problem that groups commit more crime he should have targeted the whites.
This statement is a valid point. Why do Muslims go to non-Muslim countries, then attempt to practice things that are illegal here, but normal in Muslim majority countries such as child brides and grooming gangs.
Has made no effort to prove that this is done by the majority of Muslims or even 1 commit to child brides or grooming gangs. If it was so valid you would have evidence. Guess this is a right-wing problem because they either misrepresent data or don't even use data to support their point.
This is just further information about the first quote. He is further explaining the link between Muslim immigration and violence.
Guess you like people talking but not giving any evidence. Do you know how great his case would be if he had evidence and did not misrepresent it?
Here, he is explaining that Australia is selling its land to other countries. I also agree with Fraser Anning on this.
No evidence has been given so it can be dismissed as such.
This is not about removing gun laws. He is stating that Australians should have the right to use firearms as a tool for self defence. Again, I agree with this.
Since guns were taken back by laws. You would have to remove gun laws in order to give back guns to the public. It is that simply yet you don't even understand that. 
you explained that Will wouldn't have an excuse to egg Fraser Anning if he wasn't far right. This simply proves my point. Will chose to assault a 69 year old man because that man has different political opinions to him.

Wars are created based on differences of opinion. This point is flawed because to even have a conflict the parties must want different outcomes also known as different opinions. 
You also continue to state that a 17 year old’s brain is not fully developed. Does this not also help my position? Will cannot thin for himself, therefore his opinions doesn’t matter? 
My position is that due to not having the same brain development Will was not able to be on par with making decisions compare to Fraser. I don't think it would help at all when Fraser retailed at a 17 year old boy or posed no physical threat.
He is 17. He is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. Does that mean any crime committed by a 17 year old should not count because they cannot think for themselves?
But he is not 69 so to expect the same level of rationale is absurd. Fraser should be punished for not being rational and slapping/punching Will. If we only look at that scenario both of them are no better than each other which makes you think how little Fraser uses his rational part of his brain to think attacking a 17 year old boy back that posed no physical threat is the right thing to do.
It seems that the media is the one making stuff up in order to make Fraser Anning out to be the bad guy. 
He also said this in the letter "Your exploitation of the killing has helped open the door to the far left." no proof given "Whitlam has embraced the policy of indiscriminate immigration." No-one accepts this stance "In order to lock-in permanent mass immigration, you multicultural elitists have annihilated the bedrock principle of Free Speech from our society." no proof given that these "elites even exist. There are quotes from an awful man but I have enough to say that if the media reported on these quotes or other quotes similar to this they are justified. There are more false quotes or irrational quotes than what Brendo cherry-picked. 
There is no reason to censor Fraser Anning, although multiple people are attempting to. He was asked for a statement regarding the shooting, and he provided one.
I don't think Brendo gave a good enough case defending his position. There are very little absolutes and to this I have demonstrated that violence against a person who would like to kick people born and raised in a country is justified because they are impacting your well-being. Guess Brendo stands by a white nationalist instead of everyday people who know very little of what this man is trying to do to Australia. I can only assume that when push comes to shove Brendo would pick the side of fascism instead of populism. 
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
>>A bit like a crime of passion - you mostly glossed over this context and I felt this was important.
Next time I will dedicate more time on the time span of the comment and how irresponsible it was.
>>but I would have added that he is also a prominent public figure who has the ability to reach and convince others of his message in a way that regular people do not.
This is the one I already thought I could have improved on but glad someone else does agree that this was a place that I could have improved my approach.
>> This makes the issue more complex than simply two people disagreeing
I agree with this but never realised it in the debate. I realise how much better my side could have been if I spoke about how much more complex the situation was than what Brendo's reduction of it was.
>>asymettric influence, for which it’s not possible for one side to simply vocally disagree as his voice is not as loud, or as well heard.
Cool word. I think I will describe what the problem is instead of using the word. Will help get my point across and since I can have 30k characters in a debate I don't really have a need of needing a shorter way of saying both sides are not the same.
Thanks for the comments.
Contender
#71
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Thanks Omar.
In terms of potential improvement - there are two areas:
1.) I would have argued that the emotional impact of the terrorist attack, and the comment FA made in the context of being anti-Muslim, and dismissive of the deaths mere hours after the attack were a mitigating factor. A bit like a crime of passion - you mostly glossed over this context and I felt this was important.
2.) You focused on his senate role, which was good - but I would have added that he is also a prominent public figure who has the ability to reach and convince others of his message in a way that regular people do not. This makes the issue more complex than simply two people disagreeing - it is a case of asymettric influence, for which it’s not possible for one side to simply vocally disagree as his voice is not as loud, or as well heard.
#70
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
"though he could have done more in several cases."
Can you show me areas I could have improved on? I would like to improve this stance I have.
Thanks for the vote.
Contender
#69
Added:
--> @Brendo
Australia needs the 1st and 2nd amendments.
#68
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Thx. U 2.
#67
Added:
--> @bsh1
You have answered my questions.
Have a nice life.
Contender
#66
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I assumed it to be tongue-in-cheek. But, based on your comments in #61, it seems like a reasonable inference to conclude that you were not on DDO contemporaneously with much of my time there.
#65
Added:
--> @bsh1
Why didn't you answer the first question?
Contender
#64
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
>> Continual what?
Continuity between DDO and DART, since much of DART's membership transferred from DDO. Using rules with which everyone was familiar minimized, I think, potential areas of confusion.
#63
Added:
--> @bsh1
>>you weren't there in its heyday.
Hey how do you know?
>>I valued continuity.
Continual what?
Contender
#62
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
>> Even though the law is prescriptive it is based what people value. Am I wrong?
All laws reflect someone's values. That doesn't mean we can't limit the range of discretion by prioritizing certain values and then generating prescriptive rules designed to protect them.
>> I would say those if's are not warranted because they will realise that this is the best debate platform around.
As I said before, this was tested on DDO and the concrete, harmful effects of onerous burdens were clear. DDO is only filled with spam and moderation now; you weren't there in its heyday.
>> You valued Airmax voting rules on DDO.
I valued continuity.
#61
Added:
--> @bsh1
>>but few would argue that we would be better off without a system of laws than with one.
Even though the law is prescriptive it is based what people value. Am I wrong?
>>The argument I made is not about limiting opposition. If voting burdens become onerous, people will simply stop voting. If people stop voting, people will stop debating.
I would say those if's are not warranted because they will realise that this is the best debate platform around. DDO is filled with spam and no moderation. CD is a conservative cesspool when I looked at it today.
>>#49.
"I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO"
You valued Airmax voting rules on DDO. Am I wrong?
Contender
#60
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
>> How?
To some extent, I think that's self-evident. It's the reason societies have laws: by setting out clearly what is or is not allowed, it becomes more difficult to act capriciously or arbitrarily. Of course, laws don't always have that effect, but few would argue that we would be better off without a system of laws than with one.
>> Why isn't that opposition not worth the hassle when creating the best debating platform?
The argument I made is not about limiting opposition. If voting burdens become onerous, people will simply stop voting. If people stop voting, people will stop debating.
>> Can you quote where you did address that?
#49.
#59
Added:
--> @bsh1
>>Prescriptive rules limit discretion because they are prescriptive.
How?
>>Attempts at stricter voting standards on DDO met with overwhelming opposition, and judging from my interactions on the site, even Ralph's comment below, the same would likely happen on DART.
Why isn't that opposition not worth the hassle when creating the best debating platform?
Is this an argument to limit opposition instead of creating the best debate site possible?
"I've answered this question already."
Can you quote where you did address that?
Contender
#58
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
>> Wouldn't this be never met?
I think there are scenarios in which moderation has more or less discretion and can act more or less capriciously. Prescriptive rules limit discretion because they are prescriptive. They cannot eliminate it, but "eliminate" =/= "limit."
>> That is relative.
Only in an absolute sense. Attempts at stricter voting standards on DDO met with overwhelming opposition, and judging from my interactions on the site, even Ralph's comment below, the same would likely happen on DART.
>> So are you denying that the rules were not made by what you value?
I've answered this question already.
#57
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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!
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.