Having had an opportunity to reflect on the debate held on the topic: should grade 9 girls receive HPV vaccine – I have enclosed my thoughts on this experience. As the pro for this argument I had the luxury of reviewing volumes of credible sources and evidence in support of this primary care initiative. In reviewing the literature early I had numerous lenses to choose from for my podiums position; in keeping with the structure for a debate I chose three main propositions to defend. My strategy was to temper my opponent’s potential arguments by presenting credible evidence on the growing international trend and prevalence of this disease with its assault on women and children, our social responsibilities and laws, and lastly, the irrefutable benefits outweighing the risks of vaccine recipients. 
	My presentation strategy played on the recurrent theme of ‘truth or dare’ throughout the debate. Regardless of my personal opinion or podium stance – the opponent, audience and I faced uncertainty with the dilemma of consequences posed by each position. As my opponent presented consequences fueling her position I tried to minimize her position with evidence versus opinion, international trends versus local statistics on reactions, and reflective narratives that played to the audience’s emotional intelligence. For example, in knowing that my opponent and the majority of my audience was female, sharing knowledge that they had children, were Canadian residents and healthcare professionals – I tried to take leverage with playing on their emotions for “our young Canadians”. This was a strategy to personalize and intensify the importance of my arguments and sway the audience in favor of my position despite documented controversies. 
	I found another effective strategy was to downplay and discredit my opponent’s strategy of provoking fear in the audience with amplifying controversial adverse side effects related to the vaccine. My tactic to forewarn the audience of the ravages of cervical cancer was to create an empathetic warning versus retaliatory fear mongering. Playing to my opponent’s and audience’s emotions with presentation of facts through narration and ratio scales, I was able to create the illusion and visualization of evidence of staggering trends and issues supporting my position. My hope was to draw them to my position and fracture the virulence of my opponent’s position. In good faith, I did side with my opponent agreeing that education is important and valued modality for management of this disease. I believe remaining professional, credible, and having the maturity to agree to disagree throughout this debate assisted in the maintenance of my integrity, which proves invaluable in the structure of this forum.
	In reflection I struggled grossly with my opponent’s lack of formed arguments. Her strategy in creating a landslide of facts and unreferenced statements immobilized me. I tried to rebut clustered highlights of her initial arguments, which I found conceivably that in a real debate no one could defend with the time allocated. My opponent was crafty with her words of “unjustified”, “unclear”, “did not address”, and “puzzling” – which I felt affected my rebuttal. In reflection I have the advantage of taking this new experience and knowledge to strengthen my skills in debating. 
	This exercise of debate proved to be an invaluable learning experience for me as it provoked emotions of healthy conflict, opened my eyes to seeing the art of defense and the importance of embracing many views, opinions, and experiences drawn from the audience. I favor utilizing strategies for presentation and concise verbiage – pro or con.