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

My email is aobrienslc@gmail.com

I am the PF coach at Park City High School and I am a first-year out from Park City. I competed in PF all four years of high school on the local and nat circuit. I went to the TOC my senior year. I am currently attending the University of Utah.

Tech > Truth

Please weigh and make sure your weighing is comparative.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

I can handle speed but I don't enjoy spreading. If you're going to spread, send a speech doc.

I determine speaker points by looking at your strategic decisions in the round and also how much I enjoy being in the round with you. Please do not be a bad person, I would not like that.

I won't call for cards unless you explicitly tell me to call for them and if that card would play a significant role in how I decide the round.

Unlike what some would have you believe (Cody Rutkowski), debate is a game, so have some fun with it.

I'm fine with and generally enjoy theory. Don't be abusive with it, make sure your opponent is familiar with theory or has extensive experience in debate before running theory. If you run theory in front of someone who doesn't know how to respond to it, I will evaluate it but I will give your opponents a lot of leeway in responding to it. Theory is the one argument where I believe in Truth > Tech

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City. I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I did PF when the summary was 2 minutes long and most people were liars.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

I strongly prefer that debaters send their entire cases and rebuttal docs in an email chain that I am included on. Speaker points will reflect this preference. gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum. A paraphrased card is an analytic.

I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

I occasionally judge policy and LD. Consider me a lay judge in these instances.

If you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears.

Err silly and down to earth over dominant and aggressive.

Impact comparison is very important to me, as it is rare that one team categorically wins the debate on every issue. At the end of the round, I can generally identify won advantages and won disadvantages of the Aff; explicitly tell me why I should prioritize one outcome over another. The team that makes the most "even if" statements tends to win my ballot.

I am not impressed by teams which analytically claim to "pre-req," "link-in," or "short-circuit" their opponents' offense. These arguments are strongest when predicated on warrants and data from quoted evidence.

I tend to think it's strategic to answer weighing. I find it absolutely bizarre that most teams drop such arguments.

The probability of an argument being true in my decision is derived from the happenings of the debate. I do not think it is a form of impact comparison, nor do I have some lower threshold for responding to arguments I personally disbelieve. If an argument is silly, it should be easy to answer.

Arguments you expect me to vote on have to be in summary and final focus.

Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

The K:

Consider me a lay judge in this realm.

I will vote on the K if you clearly articulate what my ballot does and win that it is good.

Theory:

I tend to think that paraphrasing is probably bad and that disclosure is probably good.

I dislike the way that teams are getting into the weeds with their interps. I don't have strong opinions about open-source, round reports, author quals, or other such interps that have proliferated on the national circuit recently. I want teams to disclose and quote evidence, but I'd strongly prefer not to evaluate interps that demand more than that.

I find these debates painfully boring, as they are always regressive regurgitations of arguments I've seen someone else articulate more persuasively. Speaker points will reflect my disdain for strategic use of theory.

IVIs:

No.

I'm not extraordinarily experienced in the debate world, as this is my second year judging. That being said, I am knowledgeable about argumentation, evidence, theory, etc. as an English teacher so please be careful and intentional when backing things up with evidence. I've found that I really appreciate clear signposting as you go through your speech. What I don't appreciate is speaking so quickly that I'm unable to take notes. If I don't have time to write down your argument or evidence, it doesn't exist to me when I go to make a decision on the winner.