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

Pronouns: He/Him

I have judged five different tournaments over the last two years. I do not have any other debate participation or judging experience. I am an engineer by training and I have one daughter in Debate at Corner Canyon High.

I prefer slow, deliberate speech. I want to see comprehensive road-mapping, signposting, and clear summaries at the end of rebuttals. Please provide a straightforward, easy-to-follow debate. I expect mutual respect between competitors.

Please provide a detailed explanation of why you think you won. E.g. tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc.

Please cite supporting evidence for your claims. Also, according to Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I am generally a "tech over truth" judge.

Any argument raised crossfire needs to be reiterated in a speech. Otherwise, I will not consider it.

Please respond line-by-line to arguments in the order they were presented.

If there is an email chain between competitors, please include me at gfrohman@gmail.com

Have fun!

PF

In the final speech please summarize why I should vote for your contentions and not for the opponents' contentions. Please include impact calculus.

LD

I prefer traditional LD (vs. progressive), but I am okay with plans and counter plans. I do not like kritiks.

Policy

Only spread if you can do it clearly. I prefer basic arguments, I do not want to see kritiks or tricks.

I debated all four years of high school splitting my time between LD and Policy pretty evenly. I debated on the National Circuit in LD, so I have a good grasp of both traditional and progressive LD so feel free to debate in the debate style you're more comfortable with. That being said I love a good progressive LD round, but won't be upset if the round ends up being traditional. I'm good with speed but only if both you and your opponent are both good with it. Please be RESPECTFUL, be KIND, and have a fun round!

email for the chain: 16annapage@gmail.com