Dr. Philip Schoenfeld, MD, is an expert in gastroenterology and longtime contributor to evidence-based clinical practice. His career has included leadership in academic gastroenterology, medical research, and professional education, including his work with Evidence-Based GI, an American College of Gastroenterology publication. Dr. Philip Schoenfeld, MD’s approach to medical education reflects the importance of helping clinicians evaluate research carefully and consider how different interpretations of evidence may affect clinical decisions. That perspective helps answer whether there is anything that debate can teach clinicians that conventional instruction may not?

In medicine, disagreement is common because clinical questions rarely have simple answers. Studies may produce conflicting findings, and new evidence can challenge established practice. Debate gives learners an opportunity to work through that uncertainty. When students or clinicians are asked to defend positions, they must understand the evidence supporting it, consider its limitations, and anticipate reasonable objections. That process makes passive learning more active and deliberate.

Research in medical education supports this approach, although the evidence base remains relatively small. A systematic review of 12 studies found that debate was used in health professions education to develop critical thinking, communication, and evidence-appraisal skills. Most of the studies reported that learners viewed debate as effective for learning content and skills. The authors also noted the need for more rigorous research using objective measures of educational outcomes.

Earlier research involving second-year medical students found that structured debates could help students develop literature-searching skills, evaluate the quality of studies, reconcile conflicting findings, and communicate their reasoning. These skills matter, because physicians routinely encounter conflicting research. Knowing how to examine those differences is part of practicing evidence-based medicine.

The value of debate depends heavily on how it is conducted. A poorly structured discussion can reward confidence over careful reasoning. Effective medical debates establish a clear clinical question, require participants to research the available evidence, and create expectations for respectful discussion. Participants should be willing to reconsider their positions when evidence warrants it. The objective is to sharpen reasoning, not to produce a winner.

This approach can be especially useful in continuing medical education, where experienced clinicians may have different interpretations of the same literature. Contrasting positions can expose participants to questions they might not have considered and encourage them to examine why experts reach different conclusions. For early-career physicians, the format can provide practice explaining clinical reasoning and responding thoughtfully to challenges.

EBMed’s Great GI Debates provides one example of how this educational model can be applied to gastroenterology. The organization’s fourth annual meeting, scheduled for February 5 to 7, 2027, combines continuing medical education with discussion and mentoring for GI fellows, residents, advanced practice providers, and early-career gastroenterologists. Its debate-centered format reflects a broader principle in medical education: Clinicians can learn from disagreement when that disagreement is structured around evidence, questions, and respectful examination of competing viewpoints.

Medicine advances through both questions and answers. Giving clinicians a setting where they must investigate evidence, defend positions, and listen carefully to other interpretations can strengthen the habits required for lifelong learning. Debate, when thoughtfully designed, becomes less about winning an argument and more about making clinical reasoning visible.