I have had many different forms of learning in the preparation of the debate that “All 9 Year Old Girls Should Receive the HPV Vaccine: CON position. This learning included  understanding the construction of logical and valid arguments using a wide range of research material, the identification the different forms of invalid arguments, the application and appreciation of formal debate technique, adapting this debate technique to a power point presentation and an on-line course forum, and “experimenting” with rebuttal strategies. Researching and critically appraising the information on this subject created an ethical dilemma for me that I learned from as well.
	The very first step in my learning process was to access the Nizor Project (2009) website to scour the basic information on the construction of logical valid arguments and the identification of fallacious arguments. The opportunity to participate and critically appraise my classmate’s debates and read other’s feedback did provide me with an advantage in that it reinforced my learning of both effective and ineffective argument construction. What I came to observe is that there is always one debate position that is more difficult to promote as there is often an inequity of “data” in the form of statistics and expert opinions to utilize. This was the position I was placed in when asked to argue against “all 9 year old girls should receive the HPV vaccine”. I felt that I had the larger burden-of-proof for this position. I found very little evidence-based or authoritative material to create any deductive arguments with so it was challenging to use mostly “presumptions’ and linking many logical premises to add weight to my inductive arguments. 
	Since I had to link a number of premises to add validity to my inductive arguments, my power point slides became quite crowded and this was criticized by my colleagues. I did choose another power point template and larger font for my summary argument in response to this. I was able to be more selective in my premises in order to do this. 
	 An additional learning that I experienced was about debate technique and strategy. As I stated previously, I was challenged to create valid arguments due to the lack of scholarly articles on this position. I had to “ration” the meager amount of information that I could locate and had to choose strategically to withhold some of this so that I had sufficient and strong information to use in my rebuttal. Did I succeed in choosing wisely what information to use for my primary argument versus for my rebuttal? It was obvious from the responses from the class that they were dissatisfied that I did not refer to actual examples of potential future “harm” and “side effects” from the HPV vaccine during my rebuttal. I responded to the class by adding this to my final debate summary and I think I did so in a way that again provided balance on the current status of side effect reporting systems. Continuing to use my “potential harm and risk” from the HPV vaccine premise as an “abstraction” in both my initial debate presentation and rebuttal likely weakened my position. In hindsight, adding this premise in my rebuttal would have had more impact..
	It was very interesting and at times, disturbing, to read the vast amount of inflammatory information from “sensational periodicals” such as the Weekly World News and Globe against the HPV vaccine. I chose not to use this information for two significant reasons.  
	According to Snyder, 2009, part of the debate process is to identify and capitalize on your opponent’s and audience’s bias. Based on class feedback from the swine flu debates in particular, I made an assumption that the audience was not in favor of supporting “conspiracy” theories rampant on anti-vaccination websites and so I aligned my initial arguments with those values of my opponents. I felt that this would prevent alienation of my opponent and audience and provide the best likelihood of them to move from their position to mine. On reflection, I think I chose well and was relieved and inspired that my efforts to provide a balanced and supported inductive arguments provided a means for my classmates to make a more informed decision for their own families.
	 The other reason that I chose not to use information from sensational periodicals is that I felt professionally and ethically bound to promote evidence-informed presumptive arguments as best as I could. I felt I needed to argue from my principles and not introduce fallacious arguments intentionally. Duffy (1983) asks rhetorically to what degree does the debate process make students aware of the ethics of their choice of argument and intention?  I was acutely aware of the possible power my arguments could have on my colleagues. The debate topic “all nine year old girls should receive the HPV vaccine” is a serious and emotional topic and one which I felt needed to be addressed in a rational, responsible, sensitive and respectful manner. I chose a more conversational style in my debate language to demonstrate this and the class did acknowledge this positively.
	Strangely, this has left me feeling ambivalent as the debate came to a close.  I wonder now whether I truly did explore the “truth” by challenging the “existing order and assumptions” of preventative HPV vaccination arguments or did I manipulate “safe” information to merely advance my chance of “winning” the debate (Snyder, 2009). This ethical debate dilemma is described by Snyder, 2009 and this was extremely helpful in assisting me to articulate the angst I felt at times in creating arguments for this debate.
	My final thought related to my participation in this debate is a humble one. Although I work only sporadically as an Infection Prevention and Control Practitioner, I have been “conditioned” to the rhetoric of immunizations being one of the mainstays in public health prevention. Professionally, I have not scrutinized the basis of the promotion of new or changes to current immunization regimes as I should. This debate process has completely altered my perspective in the need to critically analyze the basis of new and any alterations to existing immunization programs in the future. My thinking has changed. I wouldn’t say that I am cynical but perhaps more motivated now to ensure that what I may promote professionally or not is based on a complete understanding of the evidence and arguments available. It is no longer satisfactory for me to yield to authority alone without putting my own effort to understand and analyze all of the information on immunizations myself.
 It is my professional and ethical responsibility to do so.