Debating is a difficult yet fulfilling task. This document is a personal evaluation on the pro stance of family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) debate. It will review the positive and negative aspects of the debate as well integrate proposed changes for future debates on this topic. The proposed changes will be discussed in association with each critique.  
	There were a number of positive aspects to this debate. Working collaboratively with the opponent strengthened the debate by creating a holistic presentation and developing an expanded literature review. By presenting only one introduction, the audience developed a sense of the complexity of family presence during CPR, understood the universal definitions of the debate, and viewed each stance through case studies.
	The PowerPoint slideshows introduced a number of mediums in which to reach the audience; text, colour, pictures, and video provided diversity to the presentations. The varied content delivery addressed written, visual and auditory learning preferences. Using slideshows also allowed control of text to space ratios. These formatting aspects should have improved absorption of content and limited overwhelming participants with copious amounts of reading.	
The addition of participants’ comments into the conclusion supported the pro argument viewpoint and demonstrated to the participants their involvement in the debate. All these positive reviews should be repeated in future debates. 
	Like the positive aspects of this debate, there are also negative components. Facilitating the debate was most difficult. Some participants became confused as to who was leading which side of the debate despite clear labelling of each slideshow and discussion forum. Facilitator comments to correct this confusion were not wholly successful. This could be due to attempts to facilitate in the opponent’s discussion and because posting of the slides was done by one debater. The audience may have insinuated that the person posting the slideshow was facilitating that forum discussion. Having each debater post her own presentation and facilitating only within her viewpoint should alleviate this confusion.
	The method for keeping track of discussions was time-consuming and inhibited facilitator participation in the discussion forum. Rather than keeping track of what each participated wrote, it would be more organized if participant’s comments were organized by content. This would allow the facilitator to intervene with greater ease should the discussion become off topic. 
One attempt to entice the audience into the rebuttal discussion was only minimally successful. The majority of discussion focused within the original pro argument section. It is believed that encouraging discussion on the rebuttal was the correct course of action. It may have been useful to interject the pro argument discussion with a suggestion to move the discussion to the rebuttal section. Because the discussion in the pro argument section was lively, anecdotal and academic, any interruption may have disrupted the depth and content of the discussion. Therefore, it was felt that providing no further comment was the correct facilitator decision. 	 
Overall, this debate was successful. The creativity of content delivery engaged the audience and led to an active discussion. Facilitation of the debate is the most significant critique of this debate. There is a need for the facilitator to only participate in her designated discussion forum and not the opponent’s in order to prevent participant confusion. Posting the debates individually will also lessen participant confusion. Keeping track of participants’ discussions from a content perspective will likely make facilitation easier and use less of the facilitator’s time. Finally, the one attempt to encourage discussion in the rebuttal forum was deemed the correct course of action despite its minimal effect because further interruption may have disrupted the successful discussion.