A survey of the participants explored the competing interests involved at a national debate tournament, including: (1) how the desire to maximize competitive prowess trades off against socialization among students; (2) how increasing the number of elimination rounds for reasons of judge equalization adds another round to an already crowded schedule; (3) the advantages and disadvantages of multiple judge panels; (4) questions of "lexis/nexis" access at the tournament site; and (5) how a large event on a relatively rigorous time table can be adjusted to make it more competitor friendly. Student input was obtained through a survey and interviews. Responses were broken down into categories of scheduling, resources, judging, awards and ceremony, and social opportunities. Results indicated that all Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) national tournament (CNT) attendees complained about the schedule, with too little time allowed for moving to rounds and receiving coaching; students who had competed at both the CNT and the NDT tournaments universally mentioned the participation awards as enhancing their enjoyment of the tournaments; and the lack of access to food as a problem. Findings also suggested that students want experienced critics and perceived the CNT as having poor quality judging. Suggestions for improvements include scheduling changes, resource increases, and a post-tournament celebration. (Includes eight notes; appended are two proposals for changes.) (CR)