Debate ELC

Group members (Ta3a):

Zoë Peels; Kai-Lin Chang;
Joyce Martini; Lieke de Vries;
Mare Peeters; Sanne Vos;
Ilse de Kort; Nova Zaaijer;
 Judesa Siregar; Gurumithra Chinnathambi

Content

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3
Debate 1.................................................................................................................................................4
(Main) statement...............................................................................................................................4
Research.............................................................................................................................................4
1st statement (against main statement)........................................................................................4
2nd statement (against main statement).......................................................................................4
3nd statement (against main statement).......................................................................................5
Spy information and comebacks....................................................................................................6
Jury questions and answers................................................................................................................8
Logbook..............................................................................................................................................8
Debate 3...............................................................................................................................................10
(main) statement..............................................................................................................................10
Research...........................................................................................................................................10
1st statement (in favour of main statement)...............................................................................10
2nd statement (in favour of main statement)..............................................................................10
3rd Statement (in favour of main statement)...............................................................................11
Spy information and comeback....................................................................................................11
Text for in the debate (debate introduction)....................................................................................12
Jury questions and answers..............................................................................................................13
Logbook............................................................................................................................................14
Group reflection...................................................................................................................................15

2
Introduction

We made this debate report for our school subject, ELC. We worked together with a group consisting
of 10 people. Joyce Martini, Zoë Peels, Sanne Vos, Nova Zaaijer, Gurumithra Chinnathambi, Kai-Lin
Chang, Judesa Siregar, Mare Peeters, Lieke de Vries and Ilse de Kort. 
In total we had two debates per group containing one for our statement and one against the
statement of a different group. We participated in the first and third debate out of the three debates
held. 

During our first debate we went against Mike’s team. We were against the statement “The BLM
movement went too far”. During the first round the team in favour stated their statements and
showed a video supporting their statement. We just stated our statements, we had flashcards that
we would read out of. We weren’t aware that we could use videos or pictures to support our
statements. During the rebuttal round the team in favour had questions about our statements and
sources, and we answered them. We also had questions about the other team’s statements and
sources. Then Deon said something controversial, he said that “The BLM movement will start a 2nd
Civil War.” 
During the second lesson we answered the jury’s questions. Then someone in our team said that
violence was necessary, and that changed MR Myers view. The other team answered the jury’s
questions very nicely. So we lost the debate. 

For our second debate we had the statement: All policemen/women should protect and not
unlawfully attack civilians. Our group had to defend this statement. Our opponents for the debate
were against it. During the first round of the debate we had flash cards, and we would read from it,
which was sometimes visible. I feel like the rebuttal went better, because we had to improvise with
how to word our comeback even though our spy had already written it down. In the end we won the
debate.

3
Debate 1

(Main) statement

The BLM movement went too far

Research

1st statement (against main statement)

The BLM movement didn’t go far enough, because discrimination is still happening too much
nowadays and lots of people still think it’s acceptable. This has to stop!!! 
( If one house is on fire, and the other one's not, why would you extinguish the one that is not on fire
even though the one that’s on fire clearly needs it. The house that is not on fire represents white,
privileged people that don’t experience discrimination as violent. The house that Is on fire and is not
extinguished, represents POC who still experience violent racism to this day, that is why they are
enraged.) 
 Only about 30 percent of discrimination victims report this to the authorities. (they don’t feel
comfortable/safe to report, because some of the police also racist) 
https://nltimes.nl/2020/06/10/discrimination-public-structural-problem-netherlands-human-
rights-board 
 28 percent of people experience discrimination in public. The discrimination is based on their
ethnicity - so based on their skin colour, ethnic- or national origin, or their spoken language. 
https://nltimes.nl/2020/06/10/discrimination-public-structural-problem-netherlands-human-
rights-board
 Within the Black Lives Matter movement, there are different groups at work, like the one
Aima is part of in the UK.
Aima says protests can engage with people who happen to see them, but she doesn't believe
the movement's message is reaching people at the top. "There hasn't really been a lot of
direct engagement between the government and a lot of the Black Lives Matter organisations
in this country," she says. "I feel like we are being ignored and we aren't being directly
spoken to."
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53812576
 When a white person commits a crime against white person, it’s just called a crime; race isn’t
a factor and that’s intentional. When people say “Black-on-Black crime” perpetuates the
myth that interracial  violence is specific to the black community. This myth says that black
people are more violent than white people. 
 One of the main reasons racism still happens a lot is because all the people who are
discriminating against black people were never told that discrimination is not okay.

2nd statement (against main statement)

The BLM movement should go further in order to reach schools (and parents), so they can teach
more about racism and the history of black people.
 The BLM movement mostly influenced the youth, however, on the other hand the elderly
barely knows about it
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-
matter-movement/ 

4
  Studies have shown that Black history education is often inadequate, superficial, and
misinterpreted.
 In order to help solve the problem, teachers could attend professional development training,
work to promote Black perspectives, and develop curriculums that explore multiple themes
within Black history, King advised.
https://www.insider.com/how-to-improve-how-black-history-is-taught-in-schools-2020-6
 Black history is typically taught in schools through the prism of victimization and oppression
instead of "persistence and resistance," according to Tina Heafner, president of the National
Council for the Social Studies and a professor of education at the University of North Carolina
at Charlotte.
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/living/story/teachers-reinventing-black-history-anti-
racism-taught-schools-71450018
 Though slavery is taught in history classes, only 8% of high school seniors could identify
slavery as the central cause of the Civil War, according to research conducted by the
Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) in 2017. And more than half of teachers found their
textbooks inadequate on the topic of slavery.
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/living/story/teachers-reinventing-black-history-anti-
racism-taught-schools-71450018
 While there have been more efforts by publishers to make textbooks more inclusive and
thorough, the pace of change is slow and often riddled with red tape, differing opinions and a
lack of resources for schools, experts say.
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/living/story/teachers-reinventing-black-history-anti-
racism-taught-schools-71450018
 Developing empathy, compassion, and a sense of justice at an early age helps kids grow into
adults who want to help make the world a better place. For parents, that often means taking
a deep breath and having those tough conversations about race and racism. “Regardless of
how the conversation begins, parents should be sending the signal that it’s OK and important
to talk about it,” Beneke says. Here’s what the experts had to say about raising an antiracist
child.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/family/in-the-news/talking-about-race/
 What parents do need to listen for are any value judgments kids may be unknowingly placing
on those differences, and then gently correct them. “Respond with open, non-judgmental
questions to understand why your child might be making that assumption.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/family/in-the-news/talking-about-race

3nd statement (against main statement)

The BLM movement has to go further, because everyone should be aware of the effect the
movement creates and how to stimulate that effect even more and so the media should show more
positive things about the BLM movement (not only the bad things) to get everyone involved.
 The media only shines light on the more intense protests rather than the peaceful ones.
 There are both pros and cons when it comes to the online and open nature of social media
content, this can cause major impacts to the BLM movement as well.
 The disadvantages are mainly misinformation, incoherence and untrue, negative slacktivism.
Misinformation of the media can cause the public to think in the opposite way of the truth.
Incoherence(=which is unclarity to something) can cause confusion and untrue, negative
slacktivism (=which is the practice of supporting a political or social cause by means such as
social media or online petitions, characterized as involving very little effort or commitment.)
working against the BLM movement(=which is the practice of supporting a political or social
cause by means such as social media or online petitions, characterized as involving very little
effort or commitment.)

5
  The prime advantages that social media offered to the Black Lives Matter movement
included resource-mobilization, message framing and coalition-building. Resource-
mobilization……. Message framing……. Coalition-building…….
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338573151_Influence_of_Social_Media_on_the_
Black_Lives_Matter_Movement/link/5e1dae89458515d2b46acbcd/download
 43 percent of voters have a positive view of Black Lives Matter, compared with 57 percent
who have a negative view of the movement
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344985-poll-57-percent-have-negative-view-of-
black-lives-matter-movement
 The vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests—more than 93%—have been peaceful,
according to a new report published Thursday by a non-profit that researches political
violence and protests across the world.
https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/
 Black people have been 28% of those who were killed by police in 2020 despite being only
13% of the population. They are 3x more likely to be killed by police than white people, and
they are 1.3x more likely to be unarmed compared to white people. 99% of killings by police
from 2013-2019 have not resulted on officers being charged with a crime. 
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
 In 2015, each of the 10 states with the highest percentage of Black residents reported state
and local policing expenditures of more than $230 per resident per year. That’s at least 328
times more than what each state spends on enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/a32745051/what-black-lives-matter-means/  
 More than half of African Americans also report experiencing racial discrimination at work,
from getting interviews at lower rates right on up to pay and promotion disparities.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/a32745051/what-black-lives-matter-means/  
https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/public_law_civil_liberties/police_complaint
s/human_rights_breaches/

Spy information and comebacks

 The notion of ‘white privilege’ pushed by BLM is, in itself, flatly racist. It crudely claims a vast
group of people has a collective privilege, irrespective of the innocence or guilt of individuals
within that group. Hyper-racialisation of this kind should find no support from those of us
who advocate centre-left economic policies – it weakens our sense of togetherness.
- Comeback: 
White privilege is not the suggestion that white people have never struggled. And
white privilege is not the assumption that everything a white person has accomplished is
unearned. Instead, white privilege should be viewed as a built-in advantage, separate from
one’s level of income or effort.
https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/fall-2018/what-is-white-privilege-really
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/17/the-blm-movement-could-not-be-more-wrong/
 Twelve percent of the population in America are black, the rest is White. But 25% of the
people who are killed by police are black which means that the rest is white. But they never
show the white people that died because of they aren’t important.
- Comeback:
In comparison more black people were killed than white people.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-
more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/
 The BLM disagrees with many things that have happened in history. They suddenly find the
statues that have to do with this history racism however these statues have been there for
years and they have never been a problem. They destroy and ruin the statues because she is

6
 supposedly racist. You cannot change history anymore, so breaking statues is of no use, you
cannot change history with it!
- Comeback:
The people who are depicted as statues are not good people. Statues are made for glorifying
the person and their ideas. If they did something that promoted racism in the past, making a
statue of them and placing it in a public area also promotes racism.  
Most of these statues are confederate statues, statues of slaveholders and Christopher
Columbus. 
Preserving these statues is expensive, tax payers have spent at least 40 million dollars
preserving the confederate statues. This money can be used somewhere useful.  
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/style/confederate-statue-columbus-analysis.html  
 Black Lives Matter demonstrations sometimes involve large-scale looting, for example in
Chicago, where some activists committed the large-scale theft of Gucci bags and expensive
Nikes
- Comeback: 
For one thing, looters and peaceful protesters aren’t typically the same people.
Others, meanwhile, see looting as a form of empowerment—a way to reclaim dignity after
decades of abuse at the hands of police and other authorities. “When you have the ability to
gain some of that power back, people take the opportunity to do so,” Rashawn Ray, a
sociologist at the University of Maryland, told me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/why-people-loot/612577/
 People are also more or less forced to speak out for you for the BLM. If you do not speak out
for the BLM, you are automatically against it, according to the BLM.
(Think of kneeling during formula 1, max Verstappen was one of the few who did not, but he
will be interviewed about that later. How so? Apparently, you are not allowed to know
yourself. And also kneel during football and basketball games.)
- Comeback:
American Football quarterback Colin Kaepernick sat on the bench during the US national
anthem to protest against police brutality and racism in a pre-season game on 26 August
2016.
Kaepernick said at the time: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country
that oppresses black people and people of colour."
He discussed his motivations with Nate Boyer, a military veteran and former National
Football League (NFL) player, who advised him to kneel because he thought it was more
"respectful".
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53098516
 The BLM really goes too far with some things, such as television series and films that are no
longer shown because it is called racism by the BLM.
These TV shows probably promote racism, and that’s really bad. Because of racism, innocent
lives are lost.  
 Slavery has been an institution fort thousands of years, as far as you can trace human history.
We look at it is something that happened to one race of people in one country, when in fact
the spread of it was around the world, so if you’re going to have reparations for slavery, it’s
going to be the greatest transfer of wealth back and forth.
The number of whites, for example, who were enslaved in North Africa by the Barbary
pirates, exceeded the number of Africans enslaved in the United States and in the American
colonies before that, put together. But nobody is going to North Africa to ask for reparations
because nobody is going to be fool enough to give it to them.
https://www.thearticle.com/the-black-lives-matter-movement-has-gone-too-far 

7
Jury questions and answers

Are the riots and the use of violence part of the B.L.M. movement? 
 The violence is part of some of the protests, but it is not necessarily part of the movement
because the movement is about that racism has to stop and the violence has nothing to do
with that racism has to stop, it is just a way how people show they don’t agree with racism,
but that doesn’t mean it is part of the movement.
Did the violence help/support the movement become bigger? 
 Yes because if they wouldn’t use violence the media won’t show it because the media only
shows the bad/violent things, and if it is not on the news nobody knows about it and it
wouldn’t be as big as it is now.
If looting and rioting will stop racism, is it okay to keep hurting other people? 
 no it is not, and hurting other people also has to stop but racism is a very big problem and in
comparison more black people are hurt than white people, so it is more important to first
make sure that racism stops and then look at the other problems and try to solve them.
Why is it that the media shows more of the violent protests than peaceful protests although there
were more peaceful protests?  
 because peaceful protests are boring to watch, so if they only show the peaceful protests,
nobody will watch it because it looks boring. So they show the violent protests because
people will watch it and the news channels will make more money.

Please show sources for the following arguments: 

• “43 percent of voters have a positive view of BLM, compared with 57 percent who have a
negative view of the movement”. 
 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344985-poll-57-percent-have-negative-view-of-
black-lives-matter-movement
• "in the corona time, more people have been shot than before.” (mentioned by a speaker in the
respond round)
 https://www.thetrace.org/2020/05/coronavirus-gun-violence-interruption-street-
outreach/amp/ 

Logbook

Roles
Researchers: Mare, Sanne, Joyce, Ilse and Judesa
Spies: Lieke, Sanne and Zoë
Rewriters: Gurumithra and Kai-lin
Researcher next debate: Nova

Lieke: about 3 hours and 45 min; spy facts, calls, lessons, WhatsApp Group, searching for statement
1, 2. 
Sanne: 8 Hours and 8 min; Half of the spy facts + part of the facts/arguments + Calls + WhatsApp
Group.
Zoë: 5,30 hours: spy facts, calls, preparing for the debate

8
Nova: 5 hours,: calls + helping with the statements + gathering information for our second debate +
preparation + rewriting some words
Gurumithra: 4 hours 15 min: writing the sentences in a more convincing way + helping with making
the statements (added info for the 3rd statement) + thinking/researching for a better first statement
+ wrote information against what the ‘spies’ found out + the calls with the group 
Kai-lin: about 5 hours and 30 min: reading through the sources they found and the sentences they
wrote + writing the sentences in a more convincing way + helping with making the statements + the
calls with the group + preparing for the debate
Mare: 5 hours: finding arguments/facts, calls, preparing for the debate
Joyce: about 5 hours and 30 min; making arguments + searching for facts/experiences + calls with the
group + preparing for the debate 
Ilse: around 7 hours; making the arguments/finding facts, calls, preparing for the debate, answering
the jury questions and making flashcards.
Judesa: 3 hours 35 min; Calls with our group + comebacks on statements of spies + facts to support
our statements + helping with making statements

9
Debate 3

(main) statement

All policemen/women should protect and not unlawfully attack civilians

Research

1st statement (in favour of main statement)

Arrest is a power of last resort and the police should consider whether there is a need to do this
rather than consider their own convenience. In such cases it could be wrongful.
 In this statement we will be explaining why police should only arrest at last resort. We stand
by this statement because there is a lot of police violence going on in the world right now.
This is happening to all races but unfortunately, mostly people of colour. An officer is NOT
allowed to stop and search you on the street because of your race or because you look
different. A police officer is allowed to use physical force in self-defence but if the arrest is
unlawful the police might have committed unlawful killing or assault. Overall, close to 1,000
people are shot to death by police officers in the U.S. alone every year, according to a
database maintained by The Washington Post.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/legal-system-s/police-s/police-
powers-to-stop-and-search-enter-private-property-and-seize-goods-s/ 
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street 
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-
more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/

2nd statement (in favour of main statement)

The police should only use violence when it is really necessary. 
 This video shows how an unarmed man is shot by the police, without getting a chance to
respond to the commands of the police, this is an example of that the police uses too much
violence without any reason, and that has to stop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKN48GBU07E
- This video shows that the victim was shot even though he followed all the instructions
that the police gave him. This is an example of how the police used violence when it was
not necessary. The victim was doing exactly what the police asked him to do, and he
didn’t pose any threat. 
Right before he got shot he moved his hand behind, which made the police shoot him.
Shaver might have attempted to prevent his shorts from slipping down. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ooa7wOKHhgv
- Background info:
Officer Philip Brailsford shot an unarmed man Daniel shaver in a hotel. Shaver invited two
other people to his room for some drink, and during that moment Shaver showed them an
air rifle he uses for his job as a pest exterminator. At one point the gun was pointing out a
window, which made a witness call the police. One person left, and when the police arrived
he ordered them to listen to what the police told them to do. One man was taken into
custody unharmed but Shaver wasn’t. Then what happened in the video took place. An
autopsy shows that Shaver was intoxicated with a blood alcohol level over 3 times the legal
driving limit. This may be why Shaver was behaving differently. 

10
3rd Statement (in favour of main statement)
The way the training of policemen and women go should change.
 The police only know how to respond to a call with an arrest or violence. 
 That there are some many “black” citizens attacked or killed by the police is not because they
are racist or think that black lives don’t matter. It is because of the way they are trained.
 One of the first things they learn when they start their training is the concept of safety. The
training is too focused on this concept. They are shown too many videos of policemen and
women getting attacked or killed. Also they have too many exercises where they show that
hesitation can be fatal. That when a person pulls a gun they can shoot faster than the
policemen and women can react. There is too much focus on this topic that policemen and
women are getting scared.
 They most of the time don’t shoot out of anger or hate but out of fear that they got during
their time at the academy. They learned to shoot or attack by the least that happens. For
example when someone\ gets something out of their car. The policemen and women are
being taught to shoot because “maybe the suspect pulls out a gun”. And this is one of the
biggest problems for violence by policemen and women.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-
ferguson/383681/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/31/the-answer-to-police-violence-is-
not-reform-its-defunding-heres-why
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/somalia-bomb-blasts-kill-5-civilians-1-police-officer/1899955 
https://www.policemag.com/tags?tag=civilians+helping+officers 
https://apnews.com/article/6cf2774600ca4ef3a517d84a351a2b28 

Spy information and comeback

 Policing Is Doing What It Was Meant to Do! (opinion piece)
- Comeback:
This is a mistake, not because it underestimates the number of police officers who are racist -
and violent, but because the problem of racist policing is not one of individual actors. It is a
mistake because the role of the police in society must be understood, not individually but
structurally.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/opinion/police-violence-racism-reform.html
 The police should attack in order to be able to protect. When people are attacked by other
people the police sometimes need to attack in order to protect people.
The primary duty of a police officer is to protect people and property.
- Comeback:
This is not the way the police should protect the members of the society. Instead of attacking
they should talk with these people and try to fix this in a peaceful way, there is no need for
the police to directly attack. Also, the police is not in danger, so they are not allowed to use
any violence (when not necessary).   
 The police are trained very well, they know what they are doing and they will only attack
when it is really needed. They won’t just attack innocent people.
The use of violence by the police is linked to many rules and conditions. For example, force
may only be used if there are no other options. The police are also not allowed to use more
violence than necessary. Under no circumstances should police violence be used as a
punishment. If possible, a warning precedes the use of force. These rules and conditions are
described in the Police Act and the Official Instruction.
 Instead of the police attacking the civilians, the civilians are attacking the police.
- Comeback:

11
 If civilians attack the police, the police is allowed to use violence to protect themselves.
However this doesn’t mean they can just shoot someone; they are not allowed to use more
violence than necessary.
 Not all civilians are innocent
- Comeback:
I agree that not all civilians who get attacked by the police are innocent, however this doesn’t
mean the police is allowed to use violence. A policeman/woman is only allowed to use
violence if there is no other option left or if the policeman/woman is in danger. In many cases
violence is used while this is not necessary (even if this person is not innocent).
https://www.politie.nl/themas/politiegeweld.html
 If the people are attacking the policemen he is allowed to fight back
- Comeback:
If the citizen isn't innocent they still aren't allowed to fight back and it definitely does not give
them the right to kill the citizen; only if they are attacking the police, and in many cases this
doesn’t happen
Floyed was a wanted criminal but that doesn't give the policemen the right to kill him. He
should be locked up and not killed.
 Police that attack people are fired (and go to prison) → consequences for the police officers.
- Comeback:
There are consequences for policy when they use violence but most of the time these
consequences are less worse than when a citizen uses violence. So policemen/women can
come easier away with committing a crime. So they also use more violence if the
consequences are less high for police officers than citizens. And even if there are
consequences is it not a reason to use violence. 

Text for in the debate (debate introduction)

Sanne: In this statement we will be explaining why police should only arrest at last resort. We stand
by this statement because there is a lot of police violence going on in the world right now, which also
triggered several protests, including the well-known BLM protest which was started after a civilian
called George Floyd was killed by 3 police officers. Unlawful police violence has to stop!

Nova: there are some rules the police have to follow according to the law: police officers are NOT
allowed to stop and search you on the street just because of your race or because you look different.
However, police officers are allowed to use physical force in self-defence but if the arrest is unlawful
the police might have committed unlawful killing or assault. 

Gurumithra: Overall, close to 1,000 people are shot to death by police officers in the U.S. alone every
year, according to a database maintained by The Washington Post. We think that the police use too
much violence without any reason, and that has to stop. So in a nutshell, the police should only use
violence only when it is really necessary and according to the law.

Kai-Lin: We would like to show you a video where the victim was shot even though he followed all
the instructions that the police gave him, this is an example of how the police use violence when it
was not necessary. The victim was doing exactly what the police asked him to do and he didn’t pose
any threat. Right before he got shot he moved his hand behind his back which made the police shoot
him → he might have attempted to prevent his short from slipping down. 

Before all that he invited his friends over to have a drink and then showed them an air rifle that he
uses for his job as a pest exterminator and he was pointing out of the window which made a

12
wideness called the police. One person left and when the police arrived he ordered them to listen to
what the police told them to do. One man was taken into custody unarmed and Daniel
Shaver(person who had the air rifle) wasn’t taken into custody, then the shooting took place.

An autopsy shows that Daniel Shaver was intoxicated which a blood alcohol level over 3 times the
legal driving limits, this may be why Daniel Shaver was behaving differently in the video.

Joyce: Also, we think that the police should be trained better, they are trained mostly on the concept
of safety to protect their own safety, during their training, for example they are shown videos of
police officers that are attacked or killed, this scares them and they may act as if everyone they try to
arrest will try to kill them .

Jury questions and answers

You are saying that the police should arrest people as a last resort, but wouldn’t arresting people
actually make sense? Because then people would know that there is law and order and that you
would be arrested. What do you want the police to do then? Imagine there is a burglar stealing
something or something worse, Do you expect the police to just talk it out with them?
 No of course the policemen don't have to talk it out with them, but what they are doing right
now is harming people without talking with them first. We would like them to talk to the
burglar (in this case) and not shoot them directly, we want them to only shoot when it is
really necessary and needed in case of self-protection. We believe there has to be some kind
of conversation without arresting/harming the suspect. That's the message that we want to
portray with our debate. 
You said that the police are trained to save themselves first is there any proof of that? Does that
happen in every police school or only one? And how do you suggest that they should be trained.
 First of all they’re trained to protect themself not save themself.
 This part of the police training is given in every police school, it’s part of deadly force (which
police officers train a lot)
 The police training should reform their policies to reduce excessive use of force by reforming
their training to focus more on de-escalation tactics. (Currently, training focuses too much on
firearm skills and omits vital exposure to non-lethal weapons and conflict management) Also,
Police officers need to have the necessary training and knowledge to manage their emotional
and physiological reactions, particularly in high stress situations.
https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involved/harvard-political-review/why-police-training-must-be-
reformed
Daniel Shaver murdered by police? According to you the police murdered him but and that he didn’t
do anything wrong. But wasn’t it his fault that he wasn’t listening to the police and the police
specifically told him to put his hand in the air but he still put his hands back, (you said that he wanted
to pull up his pants, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN DO THAT WHEN THE POLICE IS IN FRONT OF YOU WITH
A GUN?!) Also how do you know that it is not like he came in your dream to tell you that…
 Daniel was instructed to crawl towards the policeman, his pants were sagging and he
thought it was going to fall, that's why he tried to pull it up. This made the police think he
was reaching for a weapon. but the gun that was seen (give example picture) does not fit into
someone's pants. We know he didn’t have a gun because police searched him after he was
shot and he didn’t have any weapons on him so it is not like he was grabbing an invisible gun,
which means that there was no self-protection needed. 

13
Please show sources for the following arguments: 
 In your statements paper, you stated that policemen/women are taught to shoot because
the suspect might pull out a gun. Do you have a source for this? A reliable source that states
that this “bad academy training” happens in the majority of academies and not just one or
two?
 https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-
ferguson/383681/
https://www.insider.com/police-training-problems-how-to-fix-experts-2020-6 
 You say that policemen/women don’t shoot out of anger or hate, but out of fear. Do you
have sources for this? Have more than one policemen/women come forward and admitted
that they shoot out of fear? Enough policemen/women have said that to be able to say that
most policemen/woman feel that way?
 https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-
ferguson/383681/

Logbook

Roles
Researchers: Judesa, Mare, Ilse, Nova, Kai-Lin, Gurumithra, Lieke
Spies: Joyce, Zoë and Sanne
Rewriters facts: Nova, Kai-Lin, Gurumithra

Lieke: 4 hours, comebacks, arguments, answering jury questions

Sanne: 7 hours and 20 min, Comebacks, Spy facts, Answering the questions.
Zoë: 4 hours; spy work, comebacks on information spies, answering jury questions
Nova: around 6 hours, research for the topic, rewriting statements, discussing.
Gurumithra: around 4 hours and 30 minutes, researching for the topic, rewriting statements, finding
information about the video. 
Kai-lin: around 4 hours and 30 min; discussing, researching, writing info/researching, preparing for
the debate 
Mare: 4 hours, finding arguments/facts
Joyce: about 4 hours and 30 minutes; spy work, comebacks on information spies, answering jury
questions
Ilse: 4 hours and 30 minutes, research, writing statements, answering jury questions.
Judesa: 2 hours and 30 minutes; make statements, research

14
Group reflection

For each debate we had, we prepared arguments and comebacks on the subject. Everybody had their
own role and worked hard. We helped each other whenever someone asked for help in the group
chat. We had group calls to discuss our statements. We would give our opinions and listen to each
other. 

Our second debate went better than our first debate. We learned how to do better research and
make stronger arguments. It went very good with how the spies did research and how we then could
make comebacks. We were well prepared for what our opponents would say. 

15