Running head: DEBATE ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP 1

Debate Analysis: Marijuana Pro Group Leadership

Nicky Reed

Ferris State University

DEBATE ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP 2

Debate Leadership Analysis for Pro Marijuana Group

The group debate consisted of six students that were divided into two groups. The group

that I elected was the Pro-Marijuana group. The two other members in my debate group

consisted of Paula Roth and Leslie Peterson. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on student

participation, analysis of leadership, qualifications and effectiveness of leadership, group

contributions, and analysis of the debate process.

Student Participation

As a student during this debate, communication was exhibited through the discussion

board and by means of texting via cellular phones. Most communication in the beginning was

concluded on the discussion board feeds. As deadlines approached Leslie and I utilized a more

direct route of texting. I found this to be very beneficial with closing the loops of

communication instead of waiting for responses on the discussion board. I believe that each

member participated with an excellent number of posts with quality points to present for our

debate. (See Figure 1 for participation pie chart). In reflection, even though a fair amount of

communication was taking place it could have been more organized and discussions composed

with any differences in opinion. I feel the group lacked a sense of freedom of opinion and

decisions were conducted by the designated submitter. Granted I do not feel we did a poor job

with our argument, this is just an observation that could have made our argument more solid.

Description and Analysis of Leaders

According to the American Nurses Association a leader abides by the vision, the

associated goals, and the plan to implement and measure progress (2010). It has been debated

whether leaders are born or grown (Lopez-Bowlan, 2016). It is my opinion that a leader is

grown. Our group actively participated in the debate process as a leader whether formal or
DEBATE ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP 3

informal in nature. A group leader was elected when we initiated the Pro group in order to

provide structure to our debate process. Leslie volunteered and it was agreed that she would act

as our group leader. What defined Leslie as a good leader was her ability to communicate

effectively amongst team members and was flexible throughout the process. Informally, I

provided direction setting for the group in order to initiate subtopics for group discussion. The

group divided up the subtopics choosing areas of interest. Each group member displayed

leadership qualities such as conviction toward set goals, communication with progress and

contributions, provided positive criticism, and ownership of deadlines (See Figure 3 for

contributions for group members). Each member played a role as a leader throughout the debate

process. One example was when Paula refocused the group on the deadline for the final

argument by giving clear direction on the expected product and time for deadline so the voice

over could be completed and reviewed by the group before posting. Each group member

demonstrated respect, trust, and dignity (ANA, 2010).

Leaders-Qualifications, Effectiveness, Member Inclusion

The qualifications of a good leader is someone that can communicate well, is an attentive

listener, provide honest feedback, consistent and credible, and can maintain direction and focus.

The pro marijuana debate group was very good at communicating any concerns that arose to

maintain focus. At times there was barriers at meeting all of these qualities as work schedules

limited fluent communication. Leslie was the overall group leader and was very reliable in

communication. An example of being an effective leader was when Leslie touched base before

the initial argument via text, seeking confirmation of approval from all group members. This

provided a closed loop conversation and awareness that the post would be submitted. Leslie also

maintained a good rapport between members and encouraged quality contributions. A less
DEBATE ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP 4

formal example of leadership was when I initiated the rebuttal topics extracted from the con

debate presentation. This provided facilitation of direction of conversation for rebuttal argument

and was an unceremonious quality of a leader.

Informal leadership amongst all members played an important role of keeping the group

focused and on task (See Figure 2 for leadership role distribution). Honestly, the group had many

time restraints that limited our ability to achieve an optimal time frame for a less hurried

production. Paula did a great job also of providing an informal voice of leadership in keeping

our group on task and initiating goals with time frames to give the group more structure in the

final argument.

Analysis of Debate Process

Marijuana legalization has been a topic of concern for many years. The federal and state

government involvement has been heightened since California initiated legalization. The debate

provided ample literature in regards to the positive use of marijuana such as decrease in the side

effects of chemotherapy, decrease seizures activity in pediatric seizure disorders, and financial

gain for the government to utilize in potential health care prevention. The negative effects of

marijuana legalization were discussed with the primary focus being the inadequate research of

marijuana being safe, unapproved usage by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), no defined

practice guidelines for physicians, and discrepancies amongst states. Both arguments have valid

points with sufficient data to back up the argument for each issue that was addressed.

The Con debate focused their attention on the lack of definitive research. The research

studies conducted were low quality and few studies were conducted according to their view. The

con group claim is valid with the exception to the inability to conduct the studies related to FDA

disapproval and illegalization of the drug. This makes it difficult to conduct the studies to
DEBATE ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP 5

analyze the potential of the drug and provide a definitive investigation of safe drug levels for use.

Tying into the debate was the various written laws of marijuana legalization. The conflicting

laws whether recreational versus medicinal usage poses an inconsistent understanding of the

legalization of marijuana. Because of the various compounds of cannabis physician practice

guidelines are conflicting. According to the con debate group, the limited research studies with

no peer review credible sources complicates quality decision making for physicians.

Furthermore, without credible studies the FDA will not consider approving marijuana for use.

The pro debate group, focused the attention to health benefits that have been reported

through various studies. One such study was included that provided generous evidence of

seizure prevention in suffering pediatric patients with return of quality of life after use. The

viewpoint of risk out weighing the benefit was highlighted. Many drugs given to treat various

cancers are not FDA approved and provide a benefit to many cancer patients. Legalizing

marijuana while taxing consumers comparable to cigarettes and alcohol will provide a means of

revenue for future health care costs for state and federal governments. Another focus of the pro

group was the studies that were conducted noting that cannabis is less harmful than the use of

alcohol and opiates that consumers ingest daily currently. A concern across the nation is the

gateway effect cannabis would potentially have for consumers. This is unconfirmed and

according to studies submitted it is unlikely. Further misconceptions were discussed in regards

to addiction. It was noted that the potential for addiction is considerably less than opiates and

alcohol according to the pro debate group.

After the initial argument was conducted, rebuttal arguments concentrated on the frailest

viewpoints from each group. The con group pushed forth with attacking the lack of research for

safety of use recreationally and medically. The pro group countered with endorsement of
DEBATE ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP 6

rescheduling marijuana to a Schedule I substance by the drug enforcement agency to aid in

facilitating further reliable research to be conducted. The pro group brought forth the point that

marijuana has been used for centuries with no ill effects of overdose and the evidence that our

bodies have a built in endocannabinoid system that plays a role in homeostasis within our bodies.

This information rebutted the claim that serious health effects was evident in marijuana use.

Another focus of the con group was the moot point of financial gain. The pro group claim that

financial gain would help in alleviating costs in the grander scheme of health care is invalid

when debating the safety of use.

The closing arguments from both the pro and con groups provided propositions of valid

and reasonable quality. The pro group opened with medical benefits and potential for more

scientific evidences upon legalization. The con group continues to seek more conclusive

evidence of the medical benefits for the specified diseases and disorders. A profound point was

made that the oral cannabis is the focus of most studies and relevant studies would need to be

conducted before decisions are made into law. Including the variation of laws amongst states

causing conflicting understanding. The con group suggests presenting a standardization across

the nation instead of inconsistentance of recreational and medicinal. Furthermore the pro group

proposed the federal governments to support legalization and rescheduling of marijuana to

promote adequate research. The consensus between both groups advise that further research

must be done to understand the chemical effects of cannabis and how to effectively monitor

levels of the substance. The claim of addiction, increased exposure means usage, physical

withdrawal syndrome, and impairment was also addressed by the pro group. The group tackles

these misconceptions with scientific data such as alcohol and other prescription drugs being

more likely to cause addiction than marijuana. Another point that was made was the component
DEBATE ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP 7

of impairment. It has been stated that not all cannabis strains cause psychoactive effects that

cause potential impairment. The con group closes out the final argument addressing the

endocannabinoid system and the lack of understanding as it only has been researched since 1990.

Sufficient data was included in all arguments with varying studies and research that is currently

available.

Conclusion

Both arguments assert convincing claims within the debate. The lack of definitive

research is pronounced and a compelling concern. Overall the debate was very educational and

provides an applicable understanding of the debate process. It is clear that leadership plays a

monumental role in integrating credible evidence into practice. A nurse leader must assure that

sufficient, scholarly, and supportive knowledge is integrated into our profession.

Communication is one of the biggest factors that orchestrates the successfulness of a group. We

as nurse leaders of our nation must advocate for sound evidence to promote educational

decisions when proposing law and policy changes.

DEBATE ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP 8

Figure 1.

Participation

Leslie Nicky Paula

Figure 2.

Leadership-Formal and
Informal

Leslie Paula Nicky

Figure 3.

Contributions

Leslie Paula Nicky

DEBATE ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP 9

References

American Nurses Association, (2010). Scope and standards of practice. 2nd Ed. Silver Spring,

MD: American Nurses Association

Lopez-Bowlan, E. (2016). A nurse practitioner’s activist efforts in Nevada. In D. J. Mason, D. B.

Gardner, F. Hopkins Outlaw, & E. T. O’Grady (Eds.), Policy & politics in nursing health

care (7th ed). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.