Overall, I found the experience to be quite interesting especially when one is required to anticipate a perspective that one would not typically endorse.  My approach was to advance the idea that much of the controversy surrounding harm reduction has much to do with the issues around substance abuse especially as it pertains to illegal substances. In retrospect, I think it would have been useful to have taken a broader approach and introduce other “morally” related harm reduction interventions, such as providing contraception to youth.  The other perspective that I considered was to look at other government sanctioned approaches to public safety and forward them as accepted harm reduction strategies. 
	One difficulty that I encountered was that I was often somewhat preoccupied with my opponents’ perspective; one that is at least for myself is counterintuitive. This preoccupation was not so much that I was worried about my own argument, but I recognized the potential difficulty for the opposing discussion and merely wanted to help. I found myself wondering as to benefits of using a collaborative approach during preparation. The debate format could still be preserved, but by working together and there may have been an opportunity to bring in more ideas to provide a more comprehensive view of the associated issues. It may have also afforded an opportunity to more fully analyze arguments as to whether or not they were more fallacy or fact, and then be able to substantiate and/or refute accordingly. 
Strengths
	I felt that I had a good understanding of many of the issues surrounding of harm reduction and was able to present the scope, principles, cost benefits and scientific evidence supporting its implementation. My arguments were substantiated with appropriate references from what would be considered to be reliable sources. I was also able provide original comments outside of the literature with respect to the attitude and principles required in order to embrace harm reduction.  I believe I was able, in part, to anticipate potentially opposing views and incorporate challenges into the presenting arguments. In rebuttal, I was able to target specific comments and able to provide appropriate evidence. I maintained respectful view of opponent’s perspective and did not personalize my comments. Finally, I was able to accept the feedback of class critiques and provided responses and feedback as appropriate to their questions as able. 
Weakness
	I had had difficulty incorporating debating principles in a conscientious manner. I found that my presenting arguments, rebuttal and closing arguments were conducted in more of an instinctive manner, rather than one that was specific within a debating format or structure. Curiously, I think had I had the opposing side of the debate, I would have been forced to explore and employ a specific debating strategy in order to frame my discussion. 
	I appreciated that much of the content of my arguments focused around the literature regarding supervised injection sites and felt that I could have provided more emphasis on other harm reduction strategies and models.  Cost benefit analysis could have been explored more thoroughly. 
	I would have liked to have been more comfortable with advancing other debate strategies, similar to that of my opponent who needed to draw upon the social and popular sentiments, that are not scientifically based but emotionally and socially driven. 	It would have been interesting to acknowledge the suggestion to introduce the ethical issues and potential conflicts that harm reduction can potentially produce –because even though I personally agree with the concepts of harm reduction, I think that this was a significant and often overlooked consideration.  As one who works in close proximity from the SIF in Vancouver and is in occasional communication with those who work there, I do not consider it coincidental that it has difficulty retaining nurses. Some of the blame has been regarding the hours and administration but I wonder if in fact there is more and whether the use of advancing the use of trained, and knowledgeable peer providers would be more appropriate. 
	Although I believe the content of the presentation to be sound, the visual presentation was likely difficult for most to follow because of formatting/software difficulties and as such would be distracting.  Although the debating audience is well informed, some better use of graphics, photographs or special effects can also provide a better “voice” than just ordinary narrative. 
Lessons Learned
	Even though the it was relatively easy to consider the arguments supporting the affirmative side of the discussion, I found that I was more vigilant about considering the opposite view and was cognizant of the potential arguments. This was somewhat of a different experience in that often when preparing discussions and papers, as it is quite easy to be self-editing and not even acknowledge information that presents to the contrary.  This approach of course can present a somewhat myopic view of the issues at hand that can result in a rigid or closed perspective. It also shuts one off to the potential possibilities that a different position has to offer and gives credence to the phrase “if the only tool you have is a hammer, all you see are nails”.