Kearl,+Ben

Background: I have coached LD for 10 years for teams in Arizona (Brophy and Desert Vista most recently).

General stuffs: I am not a fan of analytic spikes or generic standards. My default position is to evaluate rounds on an impact level from a comparative worlds perspective (a la policy debate). I am open to alternative casing structures (e.g. plans or critical constructives).

Speed: Will keep up, but p lease do not spread theory shells or dense critical cards--I need pen and brain time.

Theory debates: OK, provided the violation(s) are adequately explained and impacted, including reasons to prefer your interpretation and why your interpretation allows for better debate. Truth be told though, I am AFF inclined about theory and will generally err towards AC interpretations of the resolution, provided there is reasonable negative ground. I evaluate theory almost exclusively in terms of in-round abuse.

Critical debate: Dig it. And would prefer critical debates as I am more familiar with continental philosophy than analytic or moral philosophy. I would ask though that critical arguments have impacts/implications. Not so much interested in framework debates as I think all arguments have impacts, including critical arguments. Alternative are nice, but I do not view them as something critiques must have.

Please ask if there are any questions.