Overall, I perceived our debate development process and implementation were strong.  Linda and I were equally excited at the opportunity to present the debate on “Mandatory Flu Shots for all Nurses?”.  We both perceived the topic to be relevant, timely, and would authentically generate a good discussion with colleagues.
Our team utilized personal discussion via telephone, personal e-mail, and asynchronous chat via Athabasca University to ensure robust collaboration and shared responsibility. We individually researched the topic and reconvened within a pre-determined timeframe.  The responsibility for reviewing and providing summaries and sharing resources electronically was seamless. Evidence was reviewed individually and collaboratively, and consensus decision making was utilized to identify the underlying themes and explore which arguments most accurately represented the trends and issues.
I proposed the newspaper article format and suggested it as an alternative to PowerPoint or essay format.  Linda was initially hesitant and shared that she perceived grading to be in favour of strict APA.  As we are both near completion of our degree, we agreed we were suffering with PowerPoint fatigue and welcomed the opportunity for creative license in the debate process.  
Our introductory, rebuttal and concluding remarks were grounded in evidence as supported by our reference lists which were inclusive of peer-reviewed journals, current national experts in the field of immunization, and also local editorials to reflect evidence in both trends and issues.  We attempted to integrate McPherson (2005) into our discussion during the introductory pro immunization debate.  
Use of debate process and terminology was moderately achieved.  I perceive that we maintained strict debate process.  We were respectful, open to discourse, and differing perspectives on the issues addressed in the debate.  Our conclusions were respectful and reflective to incorporate the many sides and causes for the issue.
For future debates, I would ensure that I cited my debate resources utilized.  We reviewed several debate resources, and consistently referred to them; however, we did not cite or openly discuss that strategy.  There was also additional confusion regarding when the group would join in the debate.  I unintentionally mislead the group as there were mixed messages in the guidelines.  It would have been pro-active to seek guidance prior to posting the debate process for the group, but I appreciate your prompt clarification to the group.
In closing, this has been a very fun, informative process.  We truly enjoyed every step of the debate process:
a) Discovery and brainstorming to find and define our issues.
b) Establishing general truths, absolutes, and justification for the pro and con during case development.
c) Comparing and contrasting our writing styles, content, and discussion of specifics and criteria/parameters.
d) Collaboratively creating structure, challenges for opponent, relevance both personally and professionally, identifying assumptions, causation and finally concessions.
e) Reflecting on the week’s discussion collaboratively to enhance our closing remarks and wrap up of the week and assignment.
Thank you for such an enlightening format for on-line learning.  I have enjoyed this exercise tremendously and eagerly anticipate the remaining debates.