Hi I'm Jeremiah! You can always reach me on messenger!
Please add me to the chain: cohn.jeremiah@gmail.com ~~and~~ summitdebatedocs@gmail.com
Postround me/ask questions if you want
+.4 speak for good bladee references

Experience
4 years of HS debate for Summit Highschool in NJ, Graduated 2022
4 years PF, 8 gold bids, and 4 silvers with 4 different partners, mainly ran substance & theory
1 year LD, reached 3 bid rounds ran stock/impact turns, theory/friv theory, tricks, Marx and Agonism, contracts, and a couple of NIB NCs
Now I debate Policy in College  at Binghamton University, I'm a 2A& mainly go for the K (Baudrillard & Pomo) + Policy Affs sometimes
TLDR:
Will eval anything -- dogmatism is cringe -- I hated losing in highschool just cuz i read the wrong thing and the judge refused to evaluate -- be good at what you do and have a good time
yes open cross & flex prep
1-- theory/T, larp, K negs, interesting tricks
2-- K affs/phil
3-- Generic boring bad tricks

Harvard 23 updates
Skep: I keep judging rounds w/ this super generic skep NC, I find it really boring, do with this information as you please. I enjoy paradoxes & random NIBs infinitely more. Also Skep vs non-pomo K affs probably caps ur speaks.
Clash Debates: I am better for the neg in clash debates but very persuaded by top level framing in these rounds. Impact turning T is very persuasive -- on a truth level I think T is wrong but on a tech level I am often unimpressed by K debaters.
% weighing: unwarranted % weighing will cap your speaks
Defaults: CIs, no RVI, presume neg in LD/Policy, 1st speaker in PF

Non-negotiables
Auto L for intentionally x-ist arguments.
I reserve the right to stop the round for safety stuff (ie misgendering)
One Winner / One Loser
gut check yourself, if you're debating a novice try to make the round accessible
clarity > speed, auditory processing disorder = slurred words are incoherent to me

LD
My wiki from HS to get an idea of what I read: https://opencaselist.com/hsld21/Summit/JeCo
I read way more K now in college but my heart wishes I could still read NIBs (https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda22/Binghamton/CoGu)
I am also cool w/ policy style debate but I will probably just enjoy it less
I never did trad LD
I'm good for 30 speaks stuff. Speaks are fake and shouldn't be a tie-breaker -- why arent we using Opp W% like every other competitive activity?
I love a good case debate :)
Will eval "vote after x speech" but it requires me evaluating the rest of the round

PF
I debated this for 4 years of HS, but honestly I pay 0 attention to the PF meta now so
Theory was the a-strat when I could get away with it in PF
Warrant comparison and weighing r super important
Yes silly extinction scenarios but also yes warrants :)
I will tank your speaks for badly warranted % weighing. I have no idea what is probable or not. I care what is won in round.
1st Summary doesn't need to extend conceded defense, but ff probably should
My favorite PF arguments were tricky overviews that somehow framed out the opps offense or triggered presumption, if you do something like this well I will love you

Policy
All the LD stuff applies here I could totally see myself voting for tricks in a policy round and would probably find it really funny
I debate policy in college
One strong opinion I have is good case debate >> lots of off