Introduction
     A debate can be defined as “a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition” (dictionary.com).  This means of argument or investigation is unique in that both its method and ends are critical (Schnurer & Snider, 2002).  The goals of this course address the students’ ability to analyze an issue and understand ways to present issues; thus in consideration of Schnurer and Snider’s (2002) view of the debate, it is an effective means of learning these skills. Upon completion of the debate process, it is important to reflect upon the strategies utilized in the argument and their effectiveness in promoting the writer’s stance.  This paper will review the debate structure and techniques used, and reflect upon their effectiveness. As well, recommendations for strengthening the arguments will be identified.
     The topic of the debate being evaluated is “All nurses must have flu vaccinations as a condition of employment”, for which I argued the pro stance.  In my original presentation, I provided a four point introduction which provided deductive reasoning for my contention stating flu shots be mandatory for all nurses. With the presentation and backing of three founding arguments, I provided the rationale behind my stance. The first argument addressed the historical aspect of this stance, and I appealed to the audience’s emotion with reference to the death of an entire family from the 1918 influenza pandemic, including a photo of the family tombstone. This was an effort to reinforce the gravity and magnitude of pandemic disease.  I also utilized the “Lest we forget” phrase, intimating that we must learn from our past, this is also timed with the approaching date of Remembrance Day in Canada. I then introduced the state of influenza today, particularly influenza A (H1N1). The referencing to current Canadian Public Health Agency and WHO statistics was incorporated to validate current fears of the next influenza pandemic.			The second argument presented in this debate is that the vaccine is a valuable means of minimizing the effects of influenza. Backing to this argument was provided by the use of several government and scholarly references, ultimately pointing to the fact that the immunization of health care workers will reduce the spread of influenza to vulnerable clients, and minimize effects on the nursing workforce.  The third argument backing this stance was that nurses are ethically obligated by their professional association, the CNA, to protect their patients from harm; in this case, this includes vaccination against influenza. Proof of the current lack of participation in vaccination programs and the proven effect on patients of nurse vaccination programs are backed by government and scholarly information.  Finally the process of deductive reasoning is used in summarizing the three main arguments, concluding that they support the stance of mandatory vaccination for nurses.  I always complete my Power Point presentations with a blank slide or photo which brings the presentation to a close. For my opening arguments, I chose to close with a photograph of two female hands coddling the world.  This was meant to infer that nurses have a responsibility to nurture and protect the world’s population; this includes protection from unnecessary exposure to disease.								I believe that I presented a strong opening argument and this was reiterated by the feedback of my classmates.  However at times I wonder if much of my presentation was rhetoric.  In consideration of the fact that my audience included all nurses, they would presumably have the knowledge of the history of influenza and its detrimental effects as well as the benefits of vaccination.  What this debate was ultimately about: human rights. As I prepared my presentations I was aware that there were many possible approaches to this debate, and I was sceptical of my own debate tactics at times. Fortunately as I predicted, the debate process brought about this point as my opponent and classmates looked beyond the data reinforcing the importance of vaccination and searched for the human rights arguments.					The rebuttal phase of debating involves disputing points brought forth by one’s opponent, predicting possible objections from the audience, and making concessions of weaknesses in the original argument.  In my rebuttal, I respond to my opponent’s interpretation of the CNA code of ethics by demonstrating that this same code of ethics supported my stance as well.  It is interesting how the same code of ethics can be interpreted to support two very opposing stances. In the rebuttal, I also concede that there are in fact risks to the influenza vaccination; however, I dispute the data that my opponent used to back this statement, the flu vaccine is not as dangerous as some media stories might lead us to believe. 							In the closing of my rebuttal, I introduced an analogy of the nurses’ need for protection from harm by comparison to the safety equipment employed by a firefighter. I found the class discussion on this slide interesting, there were very distinct reactions; one classmate found it to be an effective comparison, whereas another seemed to be offended by this comparison.  A tie to the current state of the H1N1 pandemic was also provided with reference to its strong presence in my community, and the inclusion of a memorial to a young mother who succumbed to this illness very recently.  Again, I utilized this approach to appeal to the audience’s emotion and to reinforce the gravity and relevance of this topic.  I was concerned that including the memorial would be seen as poor taste; however, I received the desired effect as one of the classmates stated how this really helped her appreciate the danger of this pandemic and the importance of vaccination.  												As the final stage of this debate, I presented my conclusions which incorporated the input of both my opponent and classmates.  I conceded that the term “mandatory” is a very challenging concept to consider for it may be seen as a violation of human rights.  However, I continued to represent the vaccination as a protection of human rights: those of our patients who are vulnerable to infection by influenza.  I must admit that this was the concept that I was fearful of since receiving my debate assignment, I felt that ultimately the human rights card would win.  However, I worked hard to rationalize that nurses are obligated to protect the rights of their patients by being vaccinated. Unfortunately the vaccination rates of nurses are still substandard and in light of the current clinical relevance of the influenza vaccination, mandating its use seems to be the quickest way to improve this rate.  Classmate perspectives that serve to support mandatory vaccination were also provided in my concluding presentation.					 Ultimately, I again relied upon emotion to strengthen my argument; the use of a nurse holding a defenceless and adorable newborn. Perhaps this emotion card was played too often in my debate techniques? However in researching my debate, I spoke with the department head of Dental Hygiene at the college where I teach.  Each year their fourth year dental hygiene students debate mass fluoridation of water. Her observations have been that in the end, the appeal to emotion seemed to be the most effective in swaying the audience, so I decided to incorporate this advice.														What would I do differently next time?  In consideration of the fact that I have never before been involved in a debate, I think I presented a strong, logical argument. Perhaps next time I would explore the issue more and debate to the actual root of the issue. In this debate, perhaps I could have responded to my original feelings that human rights would ultimately be the base of this argument.  My arguments could have delved sooner into concepts of human rights such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy and justice as these concepts came to light during the classmate discussions. This would also have functioned as a method to predict and dispute my opponent’s founding arguments. On another point, I chose to utilize graphics in the Power Point, though I believe this can add intrigue to a presentation, perhaps some were too “cute” and detracted from the scholarliness of my presentation. 						In conclusion, I felt my opponent and I presented the concept of mandatory vaccination in a well researched and logical manner. The audience, our classmates, gained knowledge of the importance of influenza vaccination for nurses.  I also believe that the course goals for NURS 609 were augmented by this process of debating. I learned from both the method and the ends of this debate; gaining knowledge and experience in analyzing and presenting an issue. This process has been very helpful as my family, friends, coworkers and students seek my advice on the influenza vaccination.  I am now able to share my opinions based on my enhanced ability to analyze this controversial issue.