Gautam,+Suneet


 * Who I am
 * I debated at Westwood HS in Austin, Texas for 3 years and at the University of Kentucky for 4 years.
 * I took a break from debate for the last three years while attending law school. As such, I am not super familiar with the oceans topic as construed this year but I did debate the previous high school's oceans topic.


 * General Notes
 * Make any argument you want. The debaters should be the ones that decide what the debate is about, how the debate is conducted, and how it should be evaluated.
 * I evaluate the debate round based on the arguments made in the 2NR and 2AR and use my flow to work backwards, measuring each relevant argument for claim, data, warrant. Making a quick, unwarranted, unsubstantiated claim in a 2NR/2AR will not factor into my decision; I will not pull the warrant for you after the round.
 * Absent arguments to the contrary, I will default into an offense/defense model. However, it is hard for me to vote neg when they win a small risk of a generic link to an improbable impact versus a well articulated defense story by the 2AR. In addition, I cannot imagine a debate in which I would vote neg absent some offensive reason to do so, given that the aff does their job in the 1AC.
 * I am addicted to the flow. I will handwrite as much of what you say as I can and my judging will be guided by this flow after the debate. My flow-centric following of the debate will continue even if the debate is not one in which the flow is particularly important to one or both sides. Please adapt speed (slow down) during theory blocks, topicality blocks, and long kritik tags, focusing on: flowable tags and clarity in analysis.
 * Debaters should have fun and be nice. Ethos, smart arguments, and relevant humor will be rewarded with speaker points.
 * Please see my brother: Sohin Gautam's judge philosophy for argument-specific notes that I agree with.


 * Please feel free to ask me any specific questions.