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.
"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."
^^^ This is the sandwiching
You are frankly someone I don't enjoy the presence of much, so I have little reason to make you happy with this RFD but I just want to tell you that the only way you would stand a chance is to separate 'justified' from 'correct'.
If you began to alter the BoP to be you proving there was justification, whether valid enough to say the act was correct or not, you'd have found the only way to avoid his BoP-sandwich having full effect. This still would be rigged against you as he'd go more specifically into violence vs speech but it would finally have put you on more relatively equal footing.
This was a difficult debate to win as Pro, don't feel like you lost an easy debate. It was difficult, just learn and improve.
Foundation? So you didn't actually quote where he did the "sandwiching" instead you bring up a quote that doesn't support your point? Okay.
I did. I quoted where he laid the foundation for the BoP sandwiching in R1 just 2 debate-comments ago: https://www.debateart.com/debates/717/comment_links/7861
You can't provide evidence for the extra-ordinary claim you made "Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely."
So you moved the goalpost to "He was the victim, not the perpetrator of the egg attack."
He was the victim, not the perpetrator of the egg attack.
"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?"
"Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely."
Quote?
"you were suggesting how powerful and potent Anning's speech was to demand powerful attack against him so why didn't the egg-smasher use speech instead of violence? "
My case was in order to stop false information spreading he requires to be silenced in that context. He is not powerful by his physicality or his presence on Twitter but he can be later on. The debate was about if he was justified or not in the egg attack.
A glaring flaw in your case, that I refer to there, is that you were suggesting how powerful and potent Anning's speech was to demand powerful attack against him so why didn't the egg-smasher use speech instead of violence? Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely.
"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?"
What?
"Obviously, I found your argument more appealing politically but I think the political appeal was precisely what weakened your case."
I still stand by that comment but if Brendo does not want to do the debate again if it ends in a tie I will surely provide evidence to support my case. I will get you to believe violence is justified based on political actions.
Thanks for the vote anyway.
Thanks for the invitation, sorry to vote against you. Obviously, I found your argument more appealing politically but I think the political appeal was precisely what weakened your case.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Madmax1976 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: The reasons why I think con won over pro
Reason 1: First of all pro has basically stated that he is not right wing and they are bad and not everyone that is right wing is bad which is stupid in my opinion. Hitler was a bad person I think we can all agree that he was .H e was a left wing dose that make Him a good person I don’t think so which is why in this third round he states “Thank you now I can see how bad you really are” because Brendo is right wing which I don’t think should be accounted for when just because your left or right schooled count.
Reason 2: Omar stated that because he doesn't like what he said about the Muslims but dose they give you the right to throw an egg at someone for doing so I don’t think so and is classified as assault which Will was the main instigator for the assault so that dose not make it right to throw and egg
Final review: I believe brendo won’t this debate by far since Omar rambled on about things that were pointless and has no context to what he was talking about so all my points are giving to brendo other than spelling which was kept as a tie
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Please read the COC page. Specifically the portion aboud what counts as a good vote
*******************************************************************
Can you vote as well?
Can you vote on this debate?
I think the only one should be punished is the teen who threw the egg. He might have been punished enough when he got slapped twice.
I didn’t even know he had an account until he accepted the debate. I will probably block him after the debate.
If you don't want Omar 2345 debating you in the future, in your debate description, state, "Omar 2345 is not allowed to participate in this debate." and you could state it is an automatic loss on his part if he accepts.
His case was not that good. Hopefully people on this site will understand.
The great egg debate strikes again!!!
I plan on winning this won.