Goh,+Hunter

Hunter Goh

4 Years @ Bakersfield High School, CA Senior @ KU Speaker Positions: 2A/1N

= No plan, no win = I __//**very**//__ strongly believe that the Affirmative must defend a hypothetical implementation of USFG action. Unless something goes horribly awry, I have a very strong disposition to vote negative if the affirmative does not defend a topical plan. __//** Please strike me **//__ if your strategy relies on impact turning framework.

General Thoughts: I evaluate debates in the same way my colleague, Mark Schmitz, does: offense/defense. That being said, it is definitely possible too win a 100% risk of a case takeout or a 0% risk of a disad. Reasonably, Tech over truth. Don't speak into the computer or else speaker points will suffer.

Topicality:***Read an aff that defends the topic. Big believer in stasis**
 * As my colleague Mark Schmitz says in his judge philosophy, T is “Always a voting issue”. I'm a big fan of competing interps, but can be persuaded otherwise.**


 * Case: Yes Please. These debates are awesome but underutilized. The more specific the cards are to the aff the better.**


 * Disads: As Mark Schmitz eloquently put it “I like them a lot (disads)”.**


 * Politics: Don't really have a strong opinion because Chris Carey usually takes it for 9 minutes in the 2NC.**


 * Kritik’s: Topic K's = Yes, Generic K's =** __//No**//__. I usually believe the aff has a large impact/ is true, the rest is debatable.

Theory: Its debatable. As a 2A i tend to err aff on CP's that result in the aff and conditionality, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Paperless: Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.