The Oxford Debate format is an engaging way to highlight the pros and cons of topics, initiatives or areas that need to be discussed and debated. As a debate, the pros and cons along with supportive arguments are shared with the audience. The audience also has the opportunity to express their support for “either side” as points are being made. The moderator provides oversight and keeps the session arguments flowing. The Oxford debate has been a popular offering at national physical therapy meetings and will be at the upcoming Educational Leadership Conference in Philadelphia. The topic for debate in October is residency education. We suggest that APTA-NE could consider introducing an Oxford Debate structure at the annual meeting. This debate structure provides for critical debate on timely and important issues along with vibrant, creative, and fun audience engagement. We would identify 2 panels (pro and con) that would include a resident or DPT student on each of the panels. The topic regarding residency education – now or never – is a current and timely topic. We believe that offering an Oxford Debate on this topic (similar to what is being done at ELC) would engage our colleagues here in Nebraska, which is a different audience from those that attend ELC. While residency education is over 20 years old in physical therapy, it remains part of the profession’s variable approach to clinical specialization. A recent article by Hartley and colleagues argues that residency education needs to become solidified and valued as an important element in physical therapy education as we discuss the importance of clinical competence across the learner continuum. The debate would be grounded in two resolutions: Pro: The physical therapy profession must find ways to make residency education part of DPT education. Con: There is no need for mandatory residency education as we do not have enough evidence that it makes a difference in terms of outcomes and value.