This is a good decision.
Debate Rounds (5)
I suggest that we define "good" as "producing greatest utility; beneficial." I look forward to an interesting debate.
Observation: Pro drops my definition of "good."
Contention One: Refusing to go to Russia is unhelpful.
Protesting by absentia instead of in person is like sending a letter when you could show up in person, the former carries much less weight than the latter. Ultimately, by staying far away, Wentworth remains inherently apart from the conflict, when he should be on the ground and embroiled in it. It is far more impactful for individuals, especially celebrities and world leaders, who wish to protest Russia"s homophobia to actually go to Russia and speak out as a form of civil disobedience. It not only gives them more visibility in Russia, but by being their physically, they lend greater gravitas to their message of tolerance. It shows that they are willing to undergo personal risk in order to speak out on behalf and in support of the LGBTQ diaspora.
Contention Two: Civil disobedience is effective and appropriate.
Civil disobedience can be explained as when someone conscientiously objects to legislation based on moral or ethical grounds, and, as a result, engages in noncompliance with that law, and peaceably accepts the consequences of that noncompliance. In other words, someone breaks an immoral law to protest that law. This is what I advocate well-known individuals to engage in, as it would be efficacious. Civil disobedience has a clear trackrecord of success that warrants my assertion here. In India, Gandhis stayagraha movement successfully ended British colonial oppression; in South Africa, apartheid was ended; in the U.S., Dr. King made huge inroads into the inequalities of the system. There are even more examples I could cite to illustrate how Civil disobedience could be a powerful tool in the fight against tyranny in Russia. (Source: 2) Ultimately, "power itself is not derived through violence, though in governmental form it is usually violent in nature. Governmental power is often maintained through oppression and the tacit compliance of the majority of the governed"Struggle and conflict are often necessary to correct injustice." (Source: 1) In this case, the struggle must be fought largely within Russia, not without. This requires the well-known to go to Russia, and "propagandize" in violation of Russia"s laws, like Lady Gaga and Madonna did. (Sources: 3 and 4)
Thus, I maintain Wentworth"s decision was not a good one. He needed to go to Russia, and then protest there. I await Pro's response.
Pro drops the argument that civil disobedience is effective. Give the historical evidence to support this as well, the argument goes Con. So, once we accept that civil disobedience works, all we have to ask is, is it appropriate in this case? I think it is. Con's only response to my analysis was to suggest that Wentworth may be brutalized and tortured by the Russian authorities if he had done what I advocate.
However, Con's rebuttal falls utterly short when we consider that neither Lady Gaga nor Madonna, nor the countless other stars or world leaders that have protested in Russia, have been assaulted. In fact, if Pro references the sources I provided earlier, she will see that Russia took the fairly tame step of filing charges over violating the terms of their visas. I hardly think we can call this "brutalization." In other words, Wentworth's celebrity would protect him, because Russia is unlikely to assail such a high profile individual. And even so, an element of mild risk adds to the powerfulness of the protest.
Furthermore, Con also drops the argument that someone with celebrity would be even more effective at protesting, because they draw media attention more easily. Finally, Con also drops the point that comparatively, civil disobedience within Russia would actually be more potent that simply boycotting Russian event of products as Wentworth did.
So, when we ask was his decision a good one, I think the answer was no. Going to Russia would have been the correct thing to do; it would have been more personally impactful and would have garnered great attention in the press. Ultimately, Russia could use some more bad press--then it might back off it's cruel policies.
SitaraPorDios forfeited this round.
SitaraPorDios forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.