Session Design Submission Review

Yes

• Communications
• CoSEF

In a debate, participants actively engage with complex issues, learning by listening to how two ideologies come into conflict and circumstances where each side might be right. True extemporaneous debates rely on creativity and quick decision-making, as debaters analyze and argue various aspects of a topic. Debates encourage analyzing problems from multiple angles while fostering open-mindedness and adaptability. Often the conflict inherent to extemporaneous debating can allow debaters and the audience alike to explore and better understand the conflicting value systems inherent to contentious topics. In short, debating is not about winning the argument; it is about encouraging educators to think about controversial topics through a new lens while better understanding both sides of an argument. To that end, CoSEF, in collaboration with the Communications Committee, proposes continuing our tradition of a Great Debate at Surgical Education Week. The debate will focus on a controversial topic within surgical education: virtual versus in-person residency interviews.

During this structured debate, which will follow a standardized format based on Lincoln-Douglas debate, debaters will first provide prepared arguments in the form of opening statements for (Pro Team) and against (Con Team) a debate resolution (e.g., “virtual interviews are more beneficial than in-person interviews for surgical residency recruitment”). Each debate team will be comprised of two surgical trainees. Arguments presented in the opening statement will be crafted prior to the debate with input from attending debate coaches (two per team – Dr. Amanda Cooper, Dr. Michael Ditillo, Dr. Cary Aarons, and Dr. Adnan Alseidi), selected for their expertise and interest in residency recruitment. Each team will then deliver extemporaneous rebuttals, improvised from their literature reviews prior to the debate, directly responding to arguments made in the opening statements. This structured exchange will clarify the core ideologic conflict between the Pro and Con arguments, thereby deepening audience understanding of the issue. Between each round of arguments, cross examination will occur to allow each team to clarify their arguments. A moderator (a CoSEF member with experience in debate and panel moderation) will guide the audience through the debate, introducing each segment and keeping each team to strict timing. The debate will conclude with an audience Q&A led by the moderator, during which each team will take questions from the audience.

Often two contrasting ideologies can create entrenched but conflicting beliefs amongst surgical educators. In our experience, ‘debates’ held on controversial topics during national conferences often involve pre-planned presentations for and against the topic, without any substantial back-and-forth arguing of ideas. This “Great Debate” during Surgical Education Week will help engage educators to explore and gain new insights into whether surgical residency interviews should be virtual or in-person. Through structured rebuttals that foster direct, respectful engagement, we hope the audience will reconsider previously held views, gain a deeper understanding of all sides of this issue, and make a more informed decision regarding this topic.

Acquire a new perspective or insight into a controversial topic in surgical education

Recognize the importance of structured conflict, in the form of debate, in better understanding both sides of an argument

Apply education theory to both sides of a controversial issue in surgical education