* I have been a part of the NDT Debate community for almost twenty years now, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to share my thoughts about the future of this activity and this special tournament to a group of students and coaches who work so hard every year and who share my passion for intercollegiate debate. It is interesting to observe that as time goes on, a person in this community of scholars and community of friends acquires a perspective that encourages reflection and introspection about the activity, as well as a commitment to engage in its ongoing creation and existence on a day-to-day basis. The community that is intercollegiate debate is just that, a community, one that exists in and through its social practices. Particularly since debate is a communication activity, it is especially important that as students of this fine art of disputation we fully understand the implications of how we speak, what lifeworlds we create through our discursive practices, who and what is valued by our implied moral structures, and as I would like to argue here, how we live our ideals as embodied social actors, fully cognizant of the symbolic implications of our words and our actions.

There is a lot of talk in debate rounds these days of "performative contradictions," of the need for debaters, judges, and coaches to hold each other accountable for all of the implications of the epistemological and moral structures of thought that inform how they evaluate and approach debate arguments. It is probably not surprising to hear that I applaud the "discursive turn" I've seen in NDT debate lately, and encourage the evolution and politicization of debate practice, if for no other reason than placing a high value on innovation and experimentation. I would like to issue a challenge, however, to all of us in this community to seriously consider how we do or do not live up to the full implications of this line of thought, and also to encourage reflection on the implications of our policy discussions of racism, poverty, and environmental degradation in America. How many of us, for example, engage in affirmative action of recruitment and scholarship decisions when it comes to the issue of providing debate opportunities to historically disadvantaged groups in American society? The poor, ethnic minorities, women, and homosexuals have traditionally been underrepresented in our community. Given twenty or so years of experience, I can testify to the advances made by this community in supporting and encouraging female debaters and coaches over the years (in my first NDT, in 1982, we counted 7 female debaters at the tournament; female watches were not available for the top debaters at the NDT until 1985). However, I continue to be dismayed at the persistent underrepresentation of minority populations in debate. Especially given how powerfully intercollegiate debate shapes the lives and minds of students and coaches alike, as many people as possible need to be exposed to this activity. I applaud the likes of Emory University and California State University, Fullerton in their embrace of minority and poor communities in their local environments. More institutions need to follow their example, if only by encouraging women and minority debaters on their own squads to continue in debate.

Let us as a community make a commitment to practice what we preach. Tolerance for differences, especially for differences of opinion, is the core value of debate; we teach each other to listen to all possible sides of arguments before coming to a decision about what we believe to be "true" or at least, defensible in post-round discussion! Let us broaden our understanding of tolerance to include issues of identity, socialization, and acculturation, being vigilant that in our quest for creating the ideal debate lifeworld of the future that we do not exclude voices that contribute to the richness of the dialogue and the social space that we create and inhabit.