Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
The Instigator
Brendo
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Was Fraser Annings egg attack justified?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Brendo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 772 times Debate No: 121002
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

Brendo

Con

I am expecting a relatively short debate is there is not much to discuss. Egg boy is being praised for cracking an egg on Fraser Annings head. This is an attack on freedom of speech. Just to clarify, I do not agree with his statement about the Christchurch attack. However, That does not give me the right to crack an egg on his skull.
omar2345

Pro

First I would like to lay out what occurred since Brendo did not do the courtesy of doing so.

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 Anning should not be punished by his 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 to give 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. "

Another problem is the assault that Fraser Anning committed on the 17 year old child. There is a reason why I stated both their ages since a 17 year old has less of a capacity of reason compared to a 69 year old man. To expect a child to think as rationally as an adult is laughable. The 69 year old is more in the wrong because he has a higher capacity of reason but that was not used when he assaulted the boy. A person has a fully developed prefrontal cortex at an age of 25 which means the boy requires 8 more years in order to have a complete capacity of reason whereas Fraser had a fully developed prefrontal cortex for
44 years. With that amount of time surely I can expect him to fully grasp his fully developed prefrontal cortex but he did not. Goes to show the character the man. He could have been reasonable and not act to the egg assault but did and shown to us that he is similar to a 17 year boy who can't doesn't think reasonably.

Since you gave me so much space I will address your points also.
This is an attack on freedom of speech.
This is not me cherry-picking. This is all he said for a reason why this is bad bearing in mind there is an 8k character limit which I would think is more than enough to speak about the why but guess Brendo did not. I will be using this time to ask questions to better understand his position.
What do you mean by freedom of speech?
How was this an attack on freedom of speech?

That does not give me the right to crack an egg on his skull.
What is a right?
What if the person advocated to negatively impact your life are you still not justified by it?

Source:
Egg smashed on Australian Senator Fraser Anning's head while speaking to media in Melbourne - Youtube
Senator Fraser Anning - Twitter
'I was always called Egg Boy': Teenager who smashed an egg on far-right senator Fraser Anning's head says he's glad the stunt has united people - and makes shock revelation about the REAL origin of his nickname - Daily Mail Online



Debate Round No. 1
Brendo

Con

When you stated that Fraser Anning should be charged. At no point did I say that I disagree with you. I do not agree with what Fraser Anning had said about Muslims. What I disagree with is that a 17 year old can assault a person and not get punished for it. Fraser Anning retaliated which is something I also disagree with. At no point do I condone the actions of either person. The teen should not have assaulted a person with an egg, And the actions of Fraser Anning could have been different.

This was an attack on freedom of speech. The 17 year old had assaulted the senator because he disagreed with what he said and has been considered a hero for it. Some people even want to label him Australian of the year. " It is an attack on freedom of speech because the teen disagrees with him, And decides that hitting the person with an egg is an acceptable response. Using this logic, It would be ok for me to assault Sarah Hanson-Young because I disagree with her about her comments regarding the "Its ok to be white" banner.

When you asked how I would react if the person advocated negatively to my life, My position would not change. Again, I disagree with Fraser Annings comments, But I would not decide to assault someone because of it. Assaulting someone because you disagree with what someone had said is not the right answer. He could have easily had a civil discussion about it, But he chose to go out and hit someone with an egg. There is no justification with assaulting someone because of different opinions.

Source regarding Sarah Hanson-Youngs quote.
https://www. Whitsundaytimes. Com. Au/news/pauline-hanson-tweets-a-box-of-tissues-to-sarah-ha/3565837/
omar2345

Pro

When you stated that Fraser Anning should be charged.
I in no way stated this. I stated Fraser is more to blame what happened in that altercation than the boy. If Fraser did not assault the Will then he would be in the right in that very specific altercation even though he has been making up conspiracies straight after the mass shooting.

The teen should not have assaulted a person with an egg, And the actions of Fraser Anning could have been different.
Who is more to blame? I don't want you to state both sides instead take a stance where you consider who is more in the wrong. I consider Fraser to be more in the wrong for the conspiracy comment on Twitter and the assault he committed.

This was an attack on freedom of speech.
Do you even know what I asked you or did my simple question did not go register?
I will repeat the questions in order to understand your position.
What do you mean by freedom of speech?
How was this an attack on freedom of speech?

he disagreed with what he said and has been considered a hero for it.
Is disagreeing the breaking of freedom of speech or using violence?

Some people even want to label him Australian of the year.
Does this even matter? We are talking about if Fraser Annings egg attack was justified. I also take the position it was due to the conspiracy tweet but would consider Will to be more in the wrong if Fraser did not respond with his own assault.

Using this logic, It would be ok for me to assault Sarah Hanson-Young because I disagree with her about her comments regarding the "Its ok to be white" banner.
What is wrong about that? We are talking about if they are justified. If she used the banner to promote some kind of ehtnostate, Supremacy or dislike about immigration I think someone is justified with the response they have.

When you asked how I would react if the person advocated negatively to my life, My position would not change.
Thank you for telling me you would allow a person to kill you.

Again, I disagree with Fraser Annings comments, But I would not decide to assault someone because of it.
You would be justified in a response due to his spreading of false information which only increases Muslim bigotry.

Assaulting someone because you disagree with what someone had said is not the right answer.
Why?

He could have easily had a civil discussion about it, But he chose to go out and hit someone with an egg.
Did you miss out that he is a 17 years old who does not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex? It is like you are intentionally missing my points to suit your narrative. I can only hope that people who read this debate can also see how little effort you put into debunking my arguments while also not being able to explain yours.

There is no justification with assaulting someone because of different opinions.
What if that opinion is I want to kill you? That is a different opinion are you going to be tolerant about that?

I am going to ready for Brendo to miss out my questions and not give me the courtesy of debunking my arguments. He has been incapable of answering 4 simple questions. I will repeat the 4 here again. What I want from Brendo to do is to explain his points not say "There is no justification with assaulting someone because of different opinions. " If Pro is unable to explain his point do tell me so that I don't consider you intentionally not doing it instead can chalk it up to ignorance.

Questions I wanted answered:

What do you mean by freedom of speech? I need to know what you mean by freedom of speech in order for me to understand how it is an attack on that.
How was this an attack on freedom of speech? Actually explain it to me this time.
What is a right? A simple definition would suffice.
What if the person advocated to negatively impact your life are you still not justified by it? You have answered this but would like to know if someone does advocate for your murder would you still be tolerant of that?

Prefrontal cortex source:
understanding the teen brain - urmc


Debate Round No. 2
Brendo

Con

When you asked who is more to blame, It is clear that Will is to blame. He assaulted another person because he disagreed with their political opinion. Disagreeing with another person"s political opinion does not give that person the ability to do whatever they want without facing the consequences. The kid assaulted someone. End of story. Yes, Fraser Anning did retaliate. You can"t expect someone to just stand still and not say/do anything after having an egg cracked on their head. The kid is the aggresso

Regarding your statements on freedom of speech, It is defined as "the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, Restraint, Or legal penalty. " This is an attack on freedom of speech because Will assaulted someone because of a different political opinion. William himself said the attack was wrong. In an interview with The Project, He said "I understand what I did was not the right thing to do. " He followed this statement by saying, "There is no reason to physically attack anyone. " Even the person who did the assault believes that the assault was wrong.

When I explained that my position would not change if the person advorcated negatively to my life, I did not mean literally murdering someone. He had a different political opinion. What I meant by that statement is that if someone had a different political opinion to me and someone egged that person. I would still not condone the actions of the attacker. Obviously with everything, There would be exceptions. I would not have a problem if someone egged Adolf Hitler. What you did was take a simple statement and blow it out of proportion.

You stated that Will is unable to act correctly because his brain is not fully developed. You are correct. However, At age 17, The brain is mature enough to realise that assaulting someone is not the right thing to do. He conscious decision to assault another person. Do we defend children who murdered their parents because their brain is not developed fully?

Regarding your final question, A right is defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something. " In Australia, People have the right to their own opinion. However, It is also illegal to assault someone. I understand that Will did have a different opinion, And he has the right to it, He does not have the right to assault a person because of it.

I would like to end the debate by asking why you believe that assaulting someone because they have a different political opinion is justified. Throughout this entire debate I have not heard why you support the actions of Will.

Thank you for the debate. I am doing a class debate as a school project so I was hoping that this would help me. Unfortunately it did not as the only argument that supports him even slightly is that his brain isn"t fully developed.
omar2345

Pro

I thought Brendo for being on this site for 1 year would know how to type his statements better but guess not.

He assaulted another person because he disagreed with their political opinion.
Fraser assaulted Will for throwing an egg at him. Your argument has no grounds when political opinions can lead to negative impacts to ones life. Later on you mention Adolf Hitler. That was because of Jewish people how about how Fraser speaking about Muslims? Do you not care or did you miss that out to suit your narrative? Fraser is comparable to Adolf Hitler because both are far-right individuals and openly dislike an entire Religion. Fraser is also in a position of power where he can use it to spread his message and create laws to follow with his bigotry. Will is only capable of throwing an egg or voting him out of being a senator. So basically Fraser has more power, Is comparable to Hitler and should be capable of using reason rather then assaulting a child. The egg is not as bad as what Fraser did to the boy.

Disagreeing with another person"s political opinion does not give that person the ability to do whatever they want without facing the consequences.
Adolf Hitler was a political figure and like you said you are justified in your attack so basically your argument in inconsistent either you allow violence based on political grounds or not. Either you are allowed to attack Hitler and Fraser or not. Make up your mind. Oh wait you can't when you made such poor attempts at making points in the last 2 Rounds and this debate is only 3 Rounds long.

The kid assaulted someone. End of story.
False information and was debunked by his follow up statement
Yes, Fraser Anning did retaliate.
It wasn't the end of the story until the altercation ended. The altercation ended was ended when Will was held down and Fraser was moved aside in order to stop the conflict. Before that was the assault done by Fraser so it wasn't the end of the story.

You can"t expect someone to just stand still and not say/do anything after having an egg cracked on their head. The kid is the aggresso
Wow so basically Brendo is for assaulting a child if they start it. Bear in mind the power difference between the two and as an adult you are expected to be more reasonable than emotional. Brendo advocates for hitting children instead of being reasonable.

"the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, Restraint, Or legal penalty. "
I am sorry but you can't call for violence without legal penalty and you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre falsely. I have shown two examples where the person does not have the right to express one's opinions without having a legal penalty towards it. Meaning we don't have freedom of speech. So you can't even defend actually having free speech so your argument that it was an attack is false as well but I will still rebut it. Shame you didn't even try in Round 1 and 2 which could have been used to better explain your point.

This is an attack on freedom of speech because Will assaulted someone because of a different political opinion.
Even putting in cultists in jail is an attack on freedom of speech. Brendo has not stated why we should ought to value freedom of speech or why this should be protected instead of putting cultists in jail or call for violence. I find this to be cherry-picking to suit one's narrative. I think it is reasonable to assume Brendo knows people can't harass people or attempt violence yet disregards it for his viewpoint yet misses out key information like why we should value freedom of speech.

"There is no reason to physically attack anyone. " Even the person who did the assault believes that the assault was wrong.
This is a lie if both of them say it. You have reasons to physically attack someone like when they attack you first or when you can save another in doing so. Both are wrong and Brendo does not understand that when later on he states people are allowed to physically attack Hitler which is comparable of Fraser if he had the power to do what Hitler did.

I would not have a problem if someone egged Adolf Hitler. What you did was take a simple statement and blow it out of proportion.
This is the reason why I used Hitler so much earlier on when he has now shown to be inconsistent. Physically attacking someone is not bad but not when you do it to Hitler. He basically says it is wrong and then states an exception to the rule he created. This inconsistent because if someone had to be like Hitler for the person to be justified in attacking him/her then Fraser would fit that category. Replace Jew-hating with Muslim hating and there you go.

You stated that Will is unable to act correctly because his brain is not fully developed. You are correct. However, At age 17, The brain is mature enough to realise that assaulting someone is not the right thing to do.
I can somewhat agree to this if it was only about the egg attack but it wasn't. I have shown the altercation was much larger than that. Will is justified in his egging when Fraser openly admits to having hatred for Muslims.

He conscious decision to assault another person. Do we defend children who murdered their parents because their brain is not developed fully?
Yes because given to a certain age it is difficult to put the blame on a child when they are incapable of reasoning. If the child did murder his/her parents then I would consider it the fault of how he/she was grown up. This might not be the parents fault but you can't blame the child if he/she sees bad and does bad since reasoning is difficult for children.

People have the right to their own opinion.
Thank you for telling me I can advocate for your violence oh wait it is against the law and you are being inconsistent? Okay.

It is also illegal to assault someone. I understand that Will did have a different opinion, And he has the right to it, He does not have the right to assault a person because of it.
Context matters. Will was justified in his response due to how awful of a person Fraser is.

why you believe that assaulting someone because they have a different political opinion is justified.
You also believe the same thing and you should ask your self why are you so inconsistent? Here is you being against the very thing you think you supposedly stand for "I would not have a problem if someone egged Adolf Hitler"

Throughout this entire debate I have not heard why you support the actions of Will.
What? Brendo is not only an inconsistent debater, Can't always explain his point and now calls me a liar.
In Round 1 if you actually read it I stated this "
"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 to give to the victims. "
Just so you can understand what I said. Will is justified because of Fraser's Muslim bigotry.

Unfortunately it did not as the only argument that supports him even slightly is that his brain isn"t fully developed.
You are arguing in bad faith. My points are clearly better than yours yet you cannot admit to that. I would consider you to be delusional and hope somewhere down in your life you would become a better debater.

To conclude:
I made the better points while also being logically consistent, Used sources and had to endure the lack of effort Brendo put in his arguments.
Debunked Brendo's points.
Brendo did not win this win this debate on the grounds of having the most convincing argument or sources. Brendo has not remained consistent was incapable of using sources even though I told him how to in my arguments. The only source he could provide was to be use a hypothetical or something not about the core question.

Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
@Thoht
Eh, A person can claim anything is justified. Rationalize anything. This is one of the reasons I claim to be a nihilist maybe. At times all the cultures, Moralities, And 'justifications all look the same to me.

. . Though not of course from my personal view. I was raised in a certain way. Exposed to a certain culture. Certain justifications seem more logical or more. . Conventional to me than others.

Sure violence upon a person inciting violence 'could be justified.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Thoht
"You didn't how how he encouraged violence prior to violence being done unto him. "
With his far-right tweet. That was followed up by the boy egging the man and Fraser I think slapped the boy or punched him.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Encouraging violence against people can be grounds for violence imo. Unless I missed something in this debate, You didn't how how he encouraged violence prior to violence being done unto him.
Posted by Bazza971234 3 years ago
Bazza971234
@leaning
Honestly the first person that I agree with 100% of what you said
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
- at isn't the same as what Hitler did. Clearly. Most people know what rights are. What freedom of speech is. Most people are willing enough to believe that a 17 year old is 'able to know better. Though a 'slight argument could be made against. Really I could go on, But I 'hate dissecting arguments. Basically Con wins for taking a more conventional, Common sense, Level headed view of the situation.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Thoht
"negative comments can justify violence. "
Why can't it?
If I want to kick you out are you justified in your response?
If I say I want you murdered are you justified in your response?

What did else did you find that was not convincing?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Don't really care anymore so do what you want.
Cunt_8
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Both were wrong"
They do not share equal blame so your statement is wrong.

Will 17 boy who threw an egg.
Fraser 69 man who assaulted a boy and post Muslim bigotry on his Twitter.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Bazza971234

I am saying Will is less to blame due to Fraser's comments and his assault after Will's egg attack. It reasonable to think teenagers are emotional but for a 69 year old person who already has a fully developed prefrontal cortex is a testament to how incapable he is to rationally think. This can be seen with the attack itself and his comments.
Posted by Bazza971234 3 years ago
Bazza971234
@omar2345

I had auto correct on the word Brian so that"s out of the picture, You stated the reason why he did it because he had an undeveloped Brain and knew he did wrong so it helps cons arguments, Your making no sense. Both were wrong about how Fraser and will is wrong because you don"t instigate something which will did by hitting the egg over his head, Then why dose it give Fraser the right to hit him
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Brendoomar2345Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources, spelling and grammar look equal to me. I came into this debate knowing 'Nothing about this event so neutral before. After, from what I've heard I 'think I agree with what Con says. Pro loses conduct from my point of view due to how much of his arguments seemed to me . . . snide, mocking, disparaging. I found Cons arguments more convincing because it seemed more society common sense to me. Society that I'm used to anyway. Sure I say in private a person can justify anything, but for this debate, it looks to me to be calking about conventional justification. And as Con said in his arguments people had the right to free speech, just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean you can assault them, or throw an egg at them. Much of Cons argument also includes a train of thought around the two wrongs don't make a right type of thinking. I'm also going with the assumption that Fraser Anning is not Hitler. Even if he is negative toward Muslims th - continued in comments
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Brendoomar2345Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Kvng_8's vote. Neither side made super convincing points however. There is much to be said on both sides. Omar had a burden to show that the attack was justified. If this was a person preaching violence etc against a group of people that would be justified to many people. I didn't see his violent nature proven anywhere. Brendo had to show why freedom of speech supercedes one's right to defend themselves if the attack was justified in this way. Neither made interesting points. One assumes that freedom of speech should have no limits with no justification, one seems to think any negative comments can justify violence. I disagree with both, and hope they find this a mildly interesting vote. Also, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Right wing people bash left wing people all the time and state the same thing.
Vote Placed by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
Brendoomar2345Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won clearly. Pro's arguments were not very good, it was just lacking.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.