To debate the negative side or against implementation of Nurse Practitioners (NP) in Canada initially presented me with a real challenge. I think it would have been different had I not been a practising NP and came to the debate without any prior experience or bias. Initially, I thought the pro side of the debate was far more straightforward and my opponent had an advantage because there is so much information to support integration of the role. 
      I belong to an association for nurse practitioners and I had just sent off several letters to the Minister of Health and MPP’s in Ontario to advocate for increased autonomy and expanded practice in Ontario. The timing of this activity coincided with our debate on integration of NP’s in Canada. It got me thinking about the legislative and regulatory barriers to practice, and the long journey and challenges to get to this point of role integration we now are witnessing today.
      I decided to contact my worthy opponent prior to the development of my argument and we were able to discuss debate positions and share resources. It was a great opportunity to work with another student outside of the virtual classroom. I realized our thinking about this topic was similar even though we were on opposing sides. We engaged in dialogue that eventually formed our arguments, and I believe this process made the debate much more informative and relevant to the audience. 
      I found debating the con side often meant presenting negative facts against the integration of NP’s within the Canadian healthcare system. I was in fact discounting my own role as an NP and this seemed awkward at times. Later into the debate I changed my strategy not to dissuade the audience against integration but to build a case so they would truly understand the challenges and barriers. I found I was presenting information to educate or inform and garner the audience’s attention about the realities that exist with the role. I was keenly aware of my opponents’ stance and times I wanted to jump in and provide my own account of what really does happen behind the scenes. There were times when I had to restrain myself, stand back, and coach the audience to disprove my facts and provide suggestions. It required patience on my part to read responses and sometimes I had to read between the lines and remain objective. Not only was I leading my own debate I was learning from the audience and my opponents’ responses; and with these responses structuring and generating my replies. 
      This process was a learning experience for me and fascinating to witness its evolution. In reflection, the debate was challenging, engaging, and an important method of dialogue; and a very positive experience for me personally and professionally.