I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

Hello, my name is Tamara Townsend Faucette. I am an energy and environmental attorney. I really enjoy judging and am so impressed with the intelligence and professionalism of the competitors. Things I look for:

1) Energy- whatever side you are arguing, step fully into that role and persuade me that it is your preferred position. Often the passion and energy of a competitor shows their preparation and enthusiasm for the topic. Persuade me that you should win.
2) Responsive- Show your flexibility and depth of knowledge by specifically attacking your opponents case with logic and evidence.
3) Respect- A vigorous debate is encouraged but please maintain the highest level of professionalism and respect.

I have judged a lot of debate events. I do not mind spreading as long as I have a copy of the brief. If you plan to spread put me on the email chain.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps. Please do not spread during off-time roadmaps--that is a chance for me to understand your organization. Use words not lingo in your roadmap--it does not count against your time.

I do not like a ton of lingo or abbreviations, especially in policy debate. I understand the lingo but I would rather hear your analysis in full words not abbreviations.

Your debate experience will serve you well and build resilience. I hope you enjoy the process! Thank you, Tamara Townsend Faucette

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

Paradigm for BQ:

If you have a framework, please explain it and why it matters. I like sign posts and clear taglines.

I do not like spreading, as it is difficult for me to process as quickly as you speak. If I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based on the arguments. If you do speak more quickly, please speak clearly and enunciate.

I don’t mind (and often encourage) passion, but I prefer you to convey your arguments in a respectful way.

It’s fine to argue about definitions, but please don’t make it the entire debate. It’s so boring.

General intro:

I’m an engineer and former debater/extemper who has judged off and on in the many years since. Always feel free to ask me any questions at the beginning of the round. For all events respect is important, personal attacks or disrespect towards others in the round can affect ranking.

LD:

Lincoln-Douglas was my passion in my debating years. Here are a few of my views:

• LD is first a foremost a value centered debate not a battle of evidence, you need a framework and to tie each argument to it

• I’m not formalistic in judging LD there are no set rules on how to set up a framework or make arguments

• While I did debate in LD it was a long time ago during an era I've heard referred to as "traditional", as opposed to the more modern progressive era. Traditional LD was more truly value based with less spreading and focus on amount of evidence. But an increased focus on definitions and articulate arguments. I recognize that this can be difficult with many of the modern (non-value based) topics being generated by the NSDA currently.

• I understand that some new era LD coaches push adding "plans" to LD cases I'm not a fan of this in my opinion there is no place for a plan in value debate, I will not expect the other side to provide a counterplan or convert to a more policy/plan based debate if that is the route you choose in your case. That being said I have given the win to debaters who presented plans

Policy:

I was never a policy debater so I'm certainly less skilled than many but I have judged policy a bit so I'm not new to the field. Here are some points I focus on:

• I can handle moderate spreading but certainly not full nationals level speed

• Please speak to the quality of the evidence provided not all cards are equal and I will weigh the strength of the cards against each other.

• Do more than dump evidence, spend time on connecting it clearly to the plans and arguments

PF:

Public Forum is the debate I've judged the least, but given that it is designed to be judged by a non-expert that is the approach I take. Your delivery should be such that an common citizen could understand. Be respectful and share time during cross-fire. I want to see evidence but don't let it become a policy style battle to see who can read the most card with no clear connection between them.

BQ:

I love BQ it reminds me a lot of how LD was in the "good old days" before NSDA forgot how to create LD topics. Keep the arguments directly related to the topic. You get the same topic the entire year so I expect to see very refined cases the later we are in the season.

BQ should be very philosophical, given that while you should have supporting evidence you should also clearly connect it together with your own reasoning in a way that clearly clashes with your opponent.

Remember all your arguments need to connect directly to the resolution.

Extemp:

• Please cite your sources I prefer the source name and a date but at least a name

• Give a definitive answer to the question

• You are welcome to time yourself. I will also be timing and have a timer large enough you will likely be able to see it, I usually use it in count up mode so no beeping disturbs your speech.

Obviously I can't list every event here but if you have questions just ask.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

I’ve coached debate in a fairly rural school for three years, but had no prior debate experience. I’m an English Major with an Emphasis in Rhetoric and composition. In other words, I know a lot about argument and organization, but I’m still learning a lot about the world of debate. As a result, I tend to judge based on argument, organization, and presentation over technicalities. If you’re communicating clearly, though, I can keep up with whatever you throw at me, and will not hold my preferences against any team/speaker who truly advances the better argument/case.

For Everyone: Be respectful toward all opponents/speakers.

Lincoln Douglas:

I prefer traditional arguments that are primarily focused on the resolution.

I will weigh my decision heavily on who is able to consistently uphold a moral argument.

Evidence is important for backing up theoretical/philosophical claims, but LD is less concerned with what is practical and more concerned with what is moral/ethical/right. In other words, if an argument is plausible despite difficulty, it still holds value so long as it progresses the moral agenda connected to the value. Your evidence is important, but only so far as it supports your moral line of reasoning. Moral claims DO need concrete evidence, though, to demonstrate applicability in the real world. Otherwise we are engaging in purely philosophical and hypothetical debate.

A good argument is one that is clear and easy to understand. I prefer a clearly established value and criterion, but a clear argument will sometimes sufficiently imply one or both.

Delivery is important, but the argument itself is more important for advancing your case.

I prefer clear speaking at a reasonable pace, but will not hold speed against the debater with the stronger case as long as I can understand it.

Don't rely on me to read your case to understand it. I should be able to understand what you are saying by listening to you in the round.

Speech Events (Oratory):

I’m looking for your overall purpose and your ability to engage an audience via your performance. My priorities are:

1. Clarity of argument’s purpose.
2. Clear line of reasoning/structure.
3. Stage Presence/Command
4. Importance/Relevance/Impact of Topic

Speech Events (Dxtemp):

I look for your ability to clearly and efficiently address the prompt. Judging priorities:

1.Clarity of answer to question

2. Structure/organization of argument

3. Quality/specificity of evidence

4. Presence/Delivery