Was Fraser Anning’s egg attack justified?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
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
ii) social cohesion by an immigration program that gives preference to those best able to integrate and assimilate
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.
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!
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.
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.
Source2: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051
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.
Even through the eyes of the authorities, this attack in unjust.
What makes Will above the law?
The only reason you believe the attack is justified is because the senator has a different opinion to you.
The only reason you believe the attack is justified is because the senator has a different opinion to you.
But because this 69 year old man had made some conservative statements, it is completely fine.
This is an example of hypocrisy.
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.
The reason why Will chose to assault him is because Will disagreed with Fraser Anning’s opinion.
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.”
What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?
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.
“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?
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.
no one has the right to censor a person's opinion
Will should not have attacked anyone.
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?
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.
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
You asked for what both Fraser and I support. So here is a list of some things you mentioned in round 1.
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.
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.
This is just further information about the first quote. He is further explaining the link between Muslim immigration and violence.
Here, he is explaining that Australia is selling its land to other countries. I also agree with Fraser Anning on this.
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.
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?
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?
It seems that the media is the one making stuff up in order to make Fraser Anning out to be the bad guy.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
>>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.
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.
"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.
Australia needs the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Thx. U 2.
You have answered my questions.
Have a nice life.
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.
Why didn't you answer the first question?
>> 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.
>>you weren't there in its heyday.
Hey how do you know?
>>I valued continuity.
Continual what?
>> 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.
>>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?
>> 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.
>>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?
>> 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.
>>limiting moderation discretion
Wouldn't this be never met? I'll take Type1 as an example. Virtuoso took down the vote on "Ramshutu dishonestly votes against RM" and used the rules to do so. I can't imagine Type1 is happy with that so discretion as goal will never be met. Simple whenever a vote is taken down discretion will not be upheld.
>>not being overly burdensome to voters
That is relative. Yeah you ask more from users compared to other debating sites but to say having some sort of rule for a form of argument required as per the debate is not too much. Why not increase the arbitrary line of being burdensome to voters and debaters? Wrick-It-Ralph mentioned forms of arguments but I don't think you responded to it.
>>I have already rejected the view that the site's voting policy reflects my individual opinion alone. Furthermore, my opinion of whether a vote conforms to those rules is not the same as my opinion of who one a given debate.
So are you denying that the rules were not made by what you value?
>>Because the rules are fairly prescriptive and clear, my individual opinion is more contained in enforcing them than it would be if I were to moderate for accuracy, which would be wholly removed from any opinion-limiting guidelines."
More of a repeat what I said earlier. Do you deny the standard you have created on this site is not based on what you value most?
>> It's difficult sometimes because the debaters don't always structure their arguments in a way that's easy to vote on.
Yeah, I can sympathize with that. But that's something debaters can improve on. Comments on formatting and structure are always good feedback for debaters.
>> Tell me the most important reason.
Some of the more oft-cited reasons include: limiting moderation discretion, not being overly burdensome to voters, and being reasonably interpretable.
>> The only difference is that you use rules to lay out the criteria to judge right or wrong votes but if there was no rules I would have to discuss about what you would consider a right or wrong vote. Do you understand where I am coming from?
Your argument here doesn't follow. I have already rejected the view that the site's voting policy reflects my individual opinion alone. Furthermore, my opinion of whether a vote conforms to those rules is not the same as my opinion of who one a given debate. Because the rules are fairly prescriptive and clear, my individual opinion is more contained in enforcing them than it would be if I were to moderate for accuracy, which would be wholly removed from any opinion-limiting guidelines. As I said earlier: "It is one thing to give me the power to apply a set of fairly prescriptive rules. Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion as I would if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason, which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation."
Fair response. I know my opinion is not popular and is contingent on the assumption that the website gets sufficient traffic
I would actually say that if moderation is the ultimate goal, that the current system has to be pretty close to ideal then. I thought it was too rigid at first. But I'm noticing that it's possible to cast a passing vote without writing a thesis, lol. It's difficult sometimes because the debaters don't always structure their arguments in a way that's easy to vote on. But no system is perfect I suppose.
"The rules are good for other reasons."
Tell me the most important reason.
"From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair."
Then my problem is for the rule itself. For that to be considered a rule I would like to know what rule states that to be sufficient in what he is doing.
"would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART."
It is already the case. The only difference is that you use rules to lay out the criteria to judge right or wrong votes but if there was no rules I would have to discuss about what you would consider a right or wrong vote. Do you understand where I am coming from? I am basically saying you are still basing the criteria on your opinions since I am sure you did create the rules based on your opinion.
>> So basically the reason why the rules are good because someone else used them and improved them for several of years?
No. The rules are good for other reasons. They're not perfect, by any reckoning, but they are good. But certainly, the rules were carefully chosen and selected, as they are conscientiously implemented.
>> What do you care more about fairness or not being problematic?
I'll refer you to something I said earlier. "You say that leaving the vote up is unfair. Ultimately, that depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair. From another perspective, it might be said that leaving up inaccurate votes is unfair, but such a view raises a slew of other problems [for fairness]. Namely, it is not within my purview as a mod to decide if RM is right or wrong about his interpretation of the debate because, at that point, I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART. That would mean that I could decide debates by fiat, which is," arguably, unfairly authoritarian and assumes, wrongly, that I am somehow capable of correctly adjudicating every debate. There is a fairness value in leaving room for dissent (and dissent implies that at least someone will be inaccurate). So, the simply answer to your question is that, yes, I care about fairness, but there are many facets of fairness to care about.
"I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO, who generated those standards through years of voting moderation and consultation with the DDO community. I did not simply pull the rules out of thin air to reflect my own personal views on voting."
Okay then. Your rules were based off what Airmax came up with through the years. So basically the reason why the rules are good because someone else used them and improved them for several of years?
"That again empowers the mod to rule on the accuracy of the voter's interpretation, which is problematic for the reasons I mentioned earlier."
What do you care more about fairness or not being problematic?
>> The site rules were based on what you value most.
I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO, who generated those standards through years of voting moderation and consultation with the DDO community. I did not simply pull the rules out of thin air to reflect my own personal views on voting.
>> The only thing you and Virtuoso have to do is make sure the person did not unfairly cherry-pick the quote while also seeing if their reasoning is valid.
See, the issue there is the word "unfairly." That again empowers the mod to rule on the accuracy of the voter's interpretation, which is problematic for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
>> Totally off the wall question. How would you feel about unmoderated voting? Me and Omar are having a conversation about if it's good or not and I thought I'd get your take on it since you probably know more about the subject than I.
I think moderated voting should always be the default. However, I am open to having some kind of optional system of unmoderated voting. It's worth considering for those who want it.
That's interesting.
You could use the 5 forms of argument as the reasons for voting I suppose.
reductio ad absurdum
Induction
Abduction
Analogy
deduction.
There are others that can be added or assimilated into this depending on how people interpret an argument. But this would be a solid way to explain how you came to believe their argument using short hand. The problem isn't really in the explaining, but rather the length sometimes required for the explanation.
Just read that. See ya later man
"What it seems like you're asking me to do is to adjudicate the vote based on my opinion of it's accuracy and not based, instead, on my opinion of its conformity to the site's rules. The former opens up far more space for discretion and subjectivity, and opens up a veritable pandora's box of problems that are best not opened."
If the rule says RM's vote was actually good enough then I would like the rules to be updated. It should be something like voters when voting must point out what they are using to vote on. This can be using speech marks to target what a person said in order to make sure people understand where he/she got this idea from. Then you can measure the vote based on that and see if it is unfair to get that kind of explanation from what was said. The only thing you and Virtuoso have to do is make sure the person did not unfairly cherry-pick the quote while also seeing if their reasoning is valid.
"This remark was ungrammatical and hard to interpret. I'd appreciate a clarification if I am to respond."
The site rules were based on what you value most. That should be easier to understand.
"I will be logging off. If it is desired, I am happy to continue the conversation tomorrow."
Do what you want.
I think it's superior and he thinks there needs to be at least some direct moderating involved. I think it can be handled indirectly by vetting alt accounts and promoting high population voting that will absorb troll votes due to their size.
Totally off the wall question. How would you feel about unmoderated voting? Me and Omar are having a conversation about if it's good or not and I thought I'd get your take on it since you probably know more about the subject than I.
I will be logging off. If it is desired, I am happy to continue the conversation tomorrow.
>> How is this about discretion?
What it seems like you're asking me to do is to adjudicate the vote based on my opinion of it's accuracy and not based, instead, on my opinion of its conformity to the site's rules. The former opens up far more space for discretion and subjectivity, and opens up a veritable pandora's box of problems that are best not opened.
>> By saying we have some "objective" standard clearly misses what you value more than someone else like me.
This remark was ungrammatical and hard to interpret. I'd appreciate a clarification if I am to respond.
"Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion has if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason"
How is this about discretion?
"which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation."
Which is a better way of voting and you would say this is a descriptive statement. The problem is at your fundamental you do things based on descriptive statements that were influenced by you making the site rules. By saying we have some "objective" standard clearly misses what you value more than someone else like me.
>> You do that anyway with the site rules. If people don't conform to your rules their vote will be taken off. Rules are opinions you elevated to be the standard of this site. That is bad argument justifying not having opinions influencing your decisions.
That misunderstands my point.
It is one thing to give me the power to apply a set of fairly prescriptive rules. Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion as I would if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason, which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation.
Seems legitimate.
No, I got removed my first day here, lol. After that, I learned how to vote better.
"I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART."
You do that anyway with the site rules. If people don't conform to your rules their vote will be taken off. Rules are opinions you elevated to be the standard of this site. That is bad argument justifying not having opinions influencing your decisions.
>> The only thing that seemed off to me is that he's suppose to address the main arguments on each side in some length. I could just be missing it in context.
This was why the vote was borderline. BOP arguments, insofar as they can determine the value and/or topicality of all other arguments in the debate, could be construed as the only arguments which mattered. It seemed to me based on a plain reading of the text as if this was RM's thinking; that is, if Pro lost the BOP arguments, nothing else he said mattered. To the extent that "main" arguments could be viewed as "those arguments which mattered," RM could have been said to have reviewed the debate's main arguments. I think it's a stretch, but only a slight one. Given that it was borderline, it was ruled sufficient, which is the default position for borderline votes.
While each vote is unique and must be placed in its particular context, I do hope none of your votes have been removed for failing to survey the main arguments when in fact you had done so. If you wish to retrospectively examine any rulings which you felt were out of step with site policy, always feel free to ask myself or Virt about it.
I know you asked me not to reply, but I would add just one more thing that is not, I think, a rephrasing of my earlier remarks. Bad votes are not the same as removable votes. A vote could be terribly reasoned or reflect poor comprehension of the round but still meet the criteria for acceptability established by the site's voting policy.
When moderators are enforcing the voting policy, we are not evaluating the vote for its "accuracy" per se, but rather for its conformity to the site's established criteria. If I were to judge votes based on their accuracy, effectively only my opinion would matter in deciding debates, removing the value of having a voting system in the first place. Even if I were to evaluate votes on the basis of their "quality" more abstractly, the subjectivity involved would make the practice unsustainable, undesirable, and overly capricious. The established criteria, while imperfect, are fairly basic and prescriptive, keeping the exercise of voting from becoming too onerous on voters and allowing for a process of moderation review which is minimally subjective.
You say that leaving the vote up is unfair. Ultimately, that depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair. From another perspective, it might be said that leaving up inaccurate votes is unfair, but such a view raises a slew of other problems. Namely, it is not within my purview as a mod to decide if RM is right or wrong about his interpretation of the debate because, at that point, I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART. That would mean that I could decide debates by fiat, which is, obviously, wrong and counterproductive.
That's a claim of knowledge, you think knowledge is fallacious, so your claim is fallacious.
Bubble Time.
"But speaking from my own experience, if I wrote what RM wrote, I generally would get my vote removed."
It's like you trying to pull a dumb-yet-genius rap and music video combo like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuPMXS7dd9s
Some things only I can do, that is my supremacy.
according to what you just said, it seems like his assessment would qualify. The only thing that seemed off to me is that he's suppose to address the main arguments on each side in some length. I could just be missing it in context. But speaking from my own experience, if I wrote what RM wrote, I generally would get my vote removed. I'm not prescribing anything here but rather just offering up what my experience has been on the website thus far.
Read Brendo's round 3, then read back to his Round 1. He played this perfectly.
I can't show you evidence of how he is a liar so all I am going to say is this is clearly unfair. He made up what was going on and went with something much more complex than what was actually said. He still can't justify his reasoning apart from he laid a "foundation" to it instead of actually showing me the part where he did the "sandwiching". Then afterwards he decides to bring in an entire paragraph that simply said Will should also be punished or maybe he should never have egged him since he never agreed with doing he was doing in the first place. I don't see how you don't see this but guess I am not in-charge and I can't do anything about it. That was the supposed "sandwiching". Don't comment back to me I don't see the point when I am sure it would be a paraphrased version of your last comment.
Moderation only looks at the content of the RFD itself when reaching its decision. It's not for us to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. Unless you're alleging a clear lie on the part of the voter (that is, a claim which is so unambiguously false that no other factors but deceit or illiteracy could possibly explain it), then my hands are tied. If you are alleging such a lie, what lie specifically are you alleging was made?
I am aware that you didn't realise Brendo had done what he had done. This is why you fought it wrong. It was there though.
That has got to be a joke. He made things up. He implied a meaning that was not made clear in the debate.
The only rfd of mine that ever got removed is one I made before the rules had been written.
Even bsh1 knows.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
You don't know what you are talking about.
He simply stated if Fraser is going to be punished. Will should also be punished or maybe he should never have egged him since he never agreed with doing it in the first place. That is a bad argument and for you to make it more than that shows how little you understood with what was going on in the debate.
It forced you to fight your own case from the other angle to stop the other sandwich slice being true.