When I requested the topic “Magnet status should be recommended for Canadian hospitals” as one of my choices for the class debate assignment, I had never really considered the fact that there was a negative side to magnet hospitals. I feel fortunate to have been assigned the Con side in the debate because I have learned a lot more about this topic. I was surprised at how difficult it was to find critical analysis of magnet in the literature. At first I thought the best way to approach it would be to use the “not yet for Canada” argument. As I read more about debates, I realized that I could make a stronger argument and a more informative debate by approaching it from the “no magnet in Canada” position. I broadened my search, which led me to think more deeply about the issue, for example I discovered an ethical aspect to magnet status which I had previously not considered. I had also not been aware that nursing unions (in unionized facilities) were largely being excluded from the magnet process. When I did find literature that was not favourable to magnet, it was almost always qualified with statements about how we should wait and see how it turns out when more data is available. Even the recent criticism of the ANA standards (in relation to the ANCC and magnet certification) which was published in the Journal of Nursing Administration was not a condemnation of magnet, nor should it have been (Scott & Craig, 2008). As nurses and administrators wait for outcomes data on magnet, I do hope that the JONA article will lead to more critical debate and greater awareness of emerging issues related to magnet status.
I believe that there are many positive indications that magnet will prevail and will develop into all that nurses hope it will be. I was glad that the class seemed to favour magnet and yet they also seemed wary of jumping into such a resource intensive process in Canada, given the differences between the US and Canadian healthcare systems. However, I also presented an argument in support of the Canadian Nurses Association’s collaborative efforts to plan for nursing’s future position in healthcare. I did this because I believe that nurses should not return to an undue reliance on individual employers’ control over nurses’ professional and employment issues, as could be the case with magnet hospitals. At least one classmate’s response acknowledged this point.
I felt that the debate as a team effort was successful and that my partner and I planned well so that both sides of the key issues were effectively presented and class discussion was constructive. I think the arguments were clear on both the pro and con sides. When we started to plan the debate, the arguments initially drifted away from the assignment topic because of inattention to the wording of the motion. We clarified the topic and were able to re-focus the debate arguments. Clarifying the topic permits a clear debate, and it is important to pay attention to the wording of the case statement because it frames the discussion and determines the relevance of the arguments presented (Branham & Meany, 1998). 
In presenting the arguments against recommending magnet hospitals for Canada, I feel that I was able to support my position and the class discussion indicated that this was the case. I felt that I provided sufficient references to support my arguments and I made use of all available resources including both scholarly and non-scholarly materials which were relevant to the debate. I also used a variety of sources to develop each argument, to the extent that this was possible. I was able to anticipate the strengths and weaknesses of opposing views presented by my partner as well as those presented by the class. For example, I anticipated that nurse satisfaction would be an important argument in favour of magnet so I presented a nurse’s description of an experience that did not reflect satisfaction with working for a magnet employer. As it turned out, the class did feel that descriptions of nurses’ actual experiences were very relevant to the debate. I think that I was able to successfully defend my position while not denouncing the qualities associated with magnet, since the magnet philosophy has many positive elements.
My goal was to present coherent and relevant arguments on one side of the topic, and class comments indicated that I achieved this.  In presenting my rebuttal, I believe that I challenged my opponent’s arguments while increasing the class understanding of the issues relevant to the debate topic. I think that I was able to construct a valid argument partly because I did concede the fact that magnet qualities are desirable for all hospitals. I presented arguments to establish the fact that it is aspects of the magnet process (and not magnet qualities) that should not be recommended for Canada.
Magnet is a complicated issue but I felt that the class was very engaged in the topic. If we had presented fewer arguments on both sides in an effort to focus discussion, class participation may have been a bit easier, given the fact that the class has limited time.  However, I think that the number of arguments was a factor in presenting an informative and thought-provoking debate to facilitate class learning on the topic. In fact several class participants contributed further issues related to the topic, for example, one classmate brought up the issue of accreditation and commented that magnet resembled the often criticized JCAHO Accreditation process in the US. All in all, I thought that we were able to use the debate format very creatively for an effective class learning experience on the issues surrounding magnet status.