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

"Quotes are for... people who can't think of something intelligent to say on their own."
~Bo Burnham

Hello, I’m Tyler.
There are two major things I’m tired of seeing in debate:

1. Debaters assuming I’ll follow their speech just by reading their speech doc.
2. Expecting me to understand all their arguments without proper explanation.

I don’t know everything—surprising, right? If you don’t take the time to read my paradigm, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. So, read it and adapt. Welcome to debate.

Background

I competed in policy debate for four years in high school (though that doesn’t necessarily mean I was amazing at it). I graduated in 2016, and now I’m here to judge whatever arguments you throw my way—as long as you explain them clearly. I will do my best to flow everything you say (see the section on speed below), and though it won’t directly affect the round, I do appreciate civility. Passion and rudeness are not the same thing—please remember that.

Quick Paradigm (TL;DR):

• Run what you want.
• Speed is okay, but don’t push it. Make sure, as the Affirmative, you’re extending your case throughout the round and using rebuttals to solidify your arguments.
• Please explain why my ballot is key.
• Don’t assume I understand your Kritik (K) or K Aff. They require clear explanation.
• I haven’t read much on the current topic(s), so help me out by making sure I follow along.
• Debate is about communication—clarity matters. If I can’t flow your argument because it's unclear or too fast, I can't weigh it in the round.
• Be respectful to each other as well as to me—debate can be intense, but respect is crucial.

Am I a 'tabula rasa' judge?

I suppose you could label me as a "tabs" judge, but don’t take that as an excuse to be lazy. That term has become so overused that it’s almost meaningless. Like any judge, I’ll try to remove my personal biases, but we’re all human—thoughts and feelings come into play. There is no perfect judge, and I certainly don’t claim to be one. I’ll evaluate anything you throw at me if you explain it well.

FAQ

Speed:
Speed (spreading) is fine, but please be clear. Slow down slightly on tag lines and analytics. If you’re giving an overview, don’t just spread through it—I need to be able to flow your arguments, and if I can’t, I can’t evaluate them. While speed is a valid strategy (and I’ve used it myself), debate is ultimately about communication. If you have long, dense taglines on your Kritik, slow down. I know from experience that not everyone can write/type as fast as someone can speak.

Arguments:
Feel free to run whatever you like—I can handle most arguments. But don’t assume I know all the ins and outs of your DA, CP, K, or K Aff. I might have debated for four years, but I still need explanations. I love a solid line-by-line debate; it’s an excellent way to prove your points. However, if you fail to explain how your Aff or Alt solves, or why my ballot is key, I’ll have a hard time voting for you. You need to make it clear why I should vote in your favor.

Role of the Ballot:

Ultimately, the ballot is a means for me to affirm the team that best proves their position under the framework provided in the round. It's not about personal beliefs but what is argued in the round. If you don’t explain why my ballot matters, it’ll be hard for me to make an informed decision in your favor.

Knowledge of the Topic:

As of now, my knowledge on the current debate topic is pretty limited. I've only judged one tournament so far, but I've watched a few topic lecture videos to get a better grasp. Despite this, I rely heavily on debaters to clearly explain their arguments. Assume I know next to nothing about the specifics and take the time to walk me through the key points and context. The more you help me understand, the better I can fairly evaluate the round.

Kritiks(Ks):

When it comes to Kritiks, clarity is key. Make sure you explain the role of my ballot if I vote for your Kritik. I want to understand how voting for the K addresses the harms you're pointing out and what it means in the context of the debate. Without a clear role of the ballot, it's challenging for me to weigh your Kritik effectively. Be thorough in explaining the links, impacts, and the alternative—assuming one is provided.

Philosophy:
I’m not deeply familiar with a wide range of philosophical concepts, so if you’re going to go deep on theory or philosophy, make sure I can follow along. If I don’t understand what you’re arguing, I can’t vote for you. Be aware that I don’t have time to read the latest literature on theory. However, this doesn’t mean you can’t run philosophy-based arguments—I’m open to hearing them as long as you explain them thoroughly and clearly. So while I’m open to whatever argument you want to run, make sure it’s explained well enough for me to follow.

Performance:
I ran a performance aff in high school (though it was a parody), so I’m cool with performance-based arguments. As with any other argument, though, you’ll need to give me a clear reason to vote for you.

Case Evaluation:
As the Affirmative, you need to prove that your world is better than the Neg or the status quo. Stick with your case and extend your arguments throughout. You can kick out of advantages strategically, but don’t drop everything. If you do, I’ll have nothing to vote on. If the Neg doesn’t address your advantages, keep extending them—I’m not going to do that work for you.

Weighing Mechanism:
Make sure to weigh your impacts explicitly—don’t expect me to do the comparative work for you. The better you explain why your impact matters more than your opponent’s, the easier it’ll be for me to evaluate the round.

Speaker Points:
Speaker points are awarded based on clarity, strategy, and engagement, but they aren’t tied to a particular style or approach. I appreciate when debaters take the time to communicate their ideas effectively and respectfully.

The "Surprise Element":
New arguments in the 2AR or 2NR will be hard for me to vote on unless adequately responded to throughout the round.

In Conclusion

I genuinely want to be the best judge I can be. I take the time to carefully evaluate your arguments, but at the end of the day, I have to make a decision. If you’re unhappy with my decision, I’m more than happy to discuss it with you, but please remember that I’m giving up my personal time, weekends, and sleep to be here for you. Debate thrives because of debaters and judges alike.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask—I’m here to help however I can.

Tyler Gordon
tylerkgordon98@gmail.com
Please add me to email chains—thanks!