In order to teach ethical principles to third and fourth-year medical students in a primary care clerkship in a secular setting, a debate format was selected. Each month, 9 to 18 students participate in the clerkship. They are randomly assigned to either the “pro” or the “con” position on one of two cases. They are given 30 minutes to research the case and develop their assigned side of the argument. The presentations are timed as in a forensics debate. Following the debate, a discussion of the ethical principles occurs in which all students can participate. Then, the instructor provides a debrief of the ethical issues including hierarchy of rights, public health consequences, liability concerns, non-maleficence, duty to protect, right of conscience, justice (e.g., concern about free-riding), and concierge medicine. The first case is a 45-year-old single male who presents as a new patient who is requesting Viagra. He has resistant HIV infection, heavy alcohol use, and multiple sexual partners. He has other sexually transmitted infections and has intermittent compliance with medical treatment. The debate is whether or not to prescribe Viagra and the consequences if the physician does not prescribe it and the patient complains. The second case deals with potential dismissal from a health center of pediatric patients whose parents refuse vaccination. A measles outbreak occurred in the community among unvaccinated children with transmission also occurring within the health center, leading to a lawsuit. The debate is whether or not to dismiss families from the health center who adamantly refuse pediatric vaccination and whether or not state law should allow philosophic exemptions to vaccination. This format has been popular with students. The assignment of students to a particular side alleviates some of the fears of expression of personal opinion and facilitates viewing issues from more than one viewpoint.